Volkswagen Agrees To California’s Demand Of Installing Chargers in Low-Income Areas

3 months ago by Mark Kane 80

Volkswagen Golf GTE

Volkswagen has acquiesced to California’s recent requirement of an investment at least 35% of its post dieselgate spendings ($800 million) into disadvantaged communities (not that VW had a choice in the matter), although some details still need to be hammered out.

VW e-Golf at prototype 150 kW EVgo and ABB charger

The German manufacturer, through its subsidiary Electrify America’s Chief Executive Mark McNabb said it will place charging infrastructure in six disadvantaged communities (instead of five).

“Volkswagen AG on Thursday told California it was expanding efforts to build electric car infrastructure in poorer communities, responding to regulators who described “shortcomings” in VW’s plan.”

“In a supplemental plan released on Thursday, the VW unit said it aimed to spend 35 percent of investment funds in such areas during the first $200 million, 30-month tranche.”

“It also said that more than half of funds for stations near highways would be spent in less affluent areas.”

California Air Resources Board member Dean Florez called the revised plan a “marked improvement” according to Reuters, but it’s not clear yet whether it will be enough, at least without revealing details.

The final plan is expected to be approved this summer.

source: Reuters

Tags: , , , , ,

80 responses to "Volkswagen Agrees To California’s Demand Of Installing Chargers in Low-Income Areas"

  1. Rightofthepeople says:

    Why not just place them in areas where the placement would better enable electric mobility in the entire region, and not worry about income levels or other social justice platforms.

    1. Dav8or says:

      Because California is run by well meaning morons. It’s well known that what low income people want most of all is an electric car. If they provide the charging station, they now can go and buy them!! Yea!!

      1. Unplugged says:

        If you live in California, you know that EVs coming off of lease are low cost, yet quality cars, selling for as low as $6K. So yes, low income people would enjoy the benefits of EVs if not for the fact that infrastructure is scarce in those areas.

        While low income people rarely have much of a lobby, it is refreshing to see at least some portion of government supporting efforts to expand the use of EVs beyond the upper class.

        Those who are sarcastic about EV useage in all levels of society should be ashamed. EVs shouldn’t just be reserved to those in single family homes comfortably living the suburbs.

        1. Pushmi-Pullyu says:

          If I could believe that public EV chargers would only be installed in well-traveled places where people feel safe sitting alone in their car for half an hour or more at a time, then I would agree with you.

          Unfortunately, those social activists likely to get control of placement of EV chargers in low-income neighborhoods are likely to be those who, like you, have let their wishful thinking about ending poverty completely destroy any common sense they once might have possessed.

          Should the poor benefit from VW’s mandate to install public EV chargers? Of course they should! And in a perfect world, they would benefit equally, or even more than equally from VW’s fine.

          But installing chargers in places where they will rarely if ever be used, and will quickly be targeted by vandals and copper thieves, isn’t going to benefit anyone except the thieves.

      2. Mark.ca says:

        In CA, if you’re poor, you can actually get a 500e for free. Do you know any poor person that doesn’t need a free car? Dav, maybe you’re not as smart as you think you are.

        1. Mark.ca says:

          …when leasing, of course…

        2. Pushmi-Pullyu says:

          Even if a person living below the poverty line would qualify for Federal EV tax rebates, which seems rather unlikely, the insurance, taxes, fees, and maintenance cost of the car won’t be free.

      3. Asak says:

        You can thank California for being a huge part of the reason EVs are where they are today. It’s certainly not due to the contributions of Kansas or Ohio.

        1. Pushmi-Pullyu says:

          Amazingly enough, there are people living in Kansas — where I live — who don’t agree, even in the slightest, with the political agenda of the extreme fringe of the extreme right-wing, science-denying, entitlement-of-the-rich promoting politicians who are in charge of our State. Even here, people believe in environmental activism and are members of the Sierra Club. And just across the border in Kansas City, Missouri, is a Tesla dealer which, when I visited a couple of years ago, had already sold more than 200 Teslae.

          The residents of California are to be commended for their political activism. But their “left coast” attitude in thinking themselves superior to those living in what they sneer at as “flyover States”… not so commendable.

    2. menorman says:

      That’s what they’re doing…

  2. James P Heartney says:

    I’m pretty much the classic lefty, but I don’t see the value in this. If it ends up putting fast chargers in low-income neighborhoods, it’s probably a complete waste; the locals won’t have vehicles that can use the chargers, and the chargers themselves won’t be in locations that enable distance travel by outsiders.

    It could potentially be more useful to put level 2 destination chargers in rental neighborhoods; this would let non-homeowners charge at night etc. Is that the plan?

    1. Avery-John Kucan says:

      Well, in California (where solar is free for home owners and electric cars get $6,000 tax refund or so) you can get a like new electric car off lease for $6,000 or so, or a 500e fiat for FREE (low income families qualify for $75 towards a car, which for a $55 a month to lease car after EV incentives isn’t so bad)

    2. Asak says:

      I’m not sure it matters. Low income areas in the city are still in the city. It actually benefits anyone who happens to drive in there for whatever reason. It’s probably good to avoid a situation where you have to shun certain parts of town because you can’t charge there.

      On top of that apartment renters probably need a lot more charging support than homeowners who can just plug in at their garage.

  3. SparkEV says:

    Pretty soon, we’re going to read horror stories of how awful EV are, because people get beat up and robbed while charging.

    1. menorman says:

      I’ve yet to get beat up or robbed while charging at curbside locations in low-income communities. I’d imagine that these installations would probably be focused in places with activity such as community centers and stores, so I highly doubt those places would be even worse than curbside.

      1. SparkEV says:

        Anecdotes mean nothing. The fact is, poor areas are more crime prone, and you’re more likely to be a victim the more time you spend there.

        When the gangs realize there are chargers in their turf and that the cars are new (ie, driven by above average income people), it’s just matter of time before we start hearing horror stories about the dangers of EV.

        1. Mark.ca says:

          What happened when gangs realized they had gas stations on their turf?

          1. unlucky says:

            Gas stations didn’t go into gang-controlled areas first. So people wth nice cars never had to stop in gang-controlled areas to fill up there. They had other options.

          2. SparkEV says:

            Gas stations often get robbed in poor areas. But it’s not just gas stations, but business of all types that suffer higher crime.

        2. Cecil says:

          Because affluent people like to drive into poor areas to show off their EV and grab a bite at White Castle? Get real. This is solving the chicken and egg problem. Poor areas don’t have garages or other ready access to curbside power. This will provide the opportunity. Are the stations going to be flocked to on day 1? Probably not, but with infrastructure you have to start somewhere. This is how it works.

          1. SparkEV says:

            There’s a reason why there are not many super markets in poor areas, and it’s not because poor people don’t eat. If you want to get real, look at EV charging: it’s unattended, people plug in and wait 30 minutes or more (DCFC), or people leave it plugged-in overnight. Do you honestly think the that chargers will survive when security-guard attended supermarkets stay away? You really need to get real.

          2. Pushmi-Pullyu says:

            “Poor areas don’t have garages or other ready access to curbside power. This will provide the opportunity.”

            As has already been said, it would be of far greater benefit to use the money from VW’s fine to install L2 chargers in apartment parking lots in poor neighborhoods, than to install DCFC stations in crime-ridden areas where nobody is going to sit alone in his or her car for half an hour.

            Is that how the money will be used? Of course not; that would make too much sense.

            * * * * *

            I continue to be amazed at the number of people suggesting the solution for people who live in apartments and therefore can’t reasonably use a PEV (Plug-in EV), is for those people to waste their time driving to, and sitting at, public DCFC stations for several hours every week.

            That’s not a solution; that’s the very antithesis of a solution: It would be creating a problem! Not only would it clog up public EV chargers with everyday charging, it would also create a backlash against EVs from people who, rightfully, would resent having to waste so much time and put that additional wear-and-tear on their cars, just to be able to use it on a daily basis.

            The solution is to install L2 chargers wherever people park their cars overnight. Whether that is accomplished by public funds in the same manner as installing street lights, or is accomplished by entrepreneurs teaming with electric utility providers to open up a new market… I don’t care. Probably we’ll see some of both.

            But arguing that people without access to charging a PEV at home or at work should buy PEVs anyway… that’s nothing short of insane.

  4. bjrosen says:

    I hope VW takes a broad view of the term low income and places EVSEs in rural areas and doesn’t waste the money in urban areas. The key to the adoption of BEVs is the ability to go anywhere not just almost everywhere. The market will provide good coverage on Interstates and in dense urban areas, the problem is that sometimes you want to go off the beaten path, that’s not an issue for ICE cars because there is no corner of the world where you can’t find a gas station, but it is for BEVs because there are a lot of places that they simply can’t go, or at best can’t go without a lot of planning. The decision to buy a BEV for 1 car households is predicated on it’s ability to go to 100% of the places that you might want it to go in the life of that car. Charging stations will never be as ubiquitous as gas stations but if they were present on every US highway and main state highways as well as every Interstate that would be good enough. The VW settlement should be used to fill in the areas that won’t filled by Chargepoint and the other commercial charging companies because that will do the most to advance the cause of electric cars.

    1. menorman says:

      It all depends on what metrics they use to define “disadvantaged communities”. A lot of rural areas do score rather high on the need column, but their populations that are lower in comparison to big cities means they get left out. Hopefully, that doesn’t happen here.

    2. Pushmi-Pullyu says:

      While I agree that it would be nice to think that some of the money will be used to install public EV chargers in outlying areas, to better support wide-ranging travel in EVs, the history of those who advocate for public moneys being used to support poor areas shows the overwhelming majority of activism is for areas of “urban blight”, and not for the rural poor. Why? Because, of course, there are a lot more voters in those urban poor areas than rural poor ones.

      There’s a reasonable case to be made for showing a preference to using public money in higher population areas; more people are there to take advantage of the resource. The problem, of course, is that much or most of the money in question is likely to be wasted on putting EV chargers where they will rarely if ever be used by anyone, not the poor nor the middle-class nor the rich.

  5. John says:

    The argument that “poor” people don’t deserve or will make use of EVSE is baloney. I was just in Los Angeles in a zip code (90018) that is low income but would greatly benefit from fast chargers. The zip code is home to USC but has few chargers and none that benefit non-USC students.

    This type of policy paired with South Coast Air Quality Management District (SCAQMD)’s Replace Your Ride program which gives up $9,500 towards a used EV is how you get low-income communities to adopt EVs. $9.5k is enough to get a used 2013-2014 Nissan Leaf.

    Low-income areas are not war zones.

    1. James P Heartney says:

      But fast chargers aren’t an appropriate everyday charging technique. For day-to-day charging you want Level 2 chargers left overnight; they’re better for the batteries, and much cheaper to install.

      Fast charging should happen along routes where EVs are traveling distances greater than their range. A few hundred million spent on rural fast chargers could make EV travel in the midwest far more practical. Putting the same chargers in urban areas accomplishes next to nothing.

      1. q says:

        in theory, yeah, overnight L2 is the right way to go for battery life.

        but practically speaking, overnight L2 has to be installed on-site – at the apartment complex – for two reasons:
        1) if you’re willing to walk half a mile to your parking spot, why not just take the bus?
        2) one overnight L2 charger can serve only one family per night – bad economy of scale.

        whereas DCFC solutions, placed in e.g. supermarket parking lots, many families can use per day, as part of errand running or whatever. an older model nissan leaf (poised to become the volkswagen beetle of the EV revolution IMO) will easily charge to 80% while the user is inside shopping. and this way, you hardcode less assumptions about exactly what block potential EV users live on, et cetera.

        yes, it’s not the best for battery life, but I’m not sure there’s a more practical approach if you’re moving into a situation where individual users don’t have the authority to install home charging themselves, even if they want to.

        1. unlucky says:

          The older your battery the slower DCFC is. Older LEAFs are not ideal for this. Heck, pre-2012s won’t make it to 80% at all anymore.

          AC charging is much cheaper, for large apartment complexes at least the wise thing to do is to get AC into their parking lots. For smaller apartment situations DCFC may be the best we can do.

          The given story is about California. And by California law a renter has the authority to install an EVSE in a place they rent. The landlord cannot prohibit it. This law was passed about 2 years ago. There are practical issues of course, installing a metered EVSE can be expensive and if you only rent you may be reticent to do so.

        2. Bill says:

          Forget L2 in apartment complexes, go with LOTS of 120VAC outlets and a secure way to plug in the EVSE that comes with every vehicle.

          50+ miles of overnight range is good enough for most people and 120VAC outlets are dirt cheap to install and you can install far more for a given current capacity of the apartment.

          Same for businesses, why put in a few 32A 240V EVSE’s that are costly when you can put in dozens of 120V outlets and let people provide their own EVSE. Now if some car manufacturer will integrate a 120VAC EVSE into their vehicle so you can plug a standard 120V extension cord into the vehicle you have an urban vehicle that doesn’t even expose the expensive EVSE to theft (which is going to be a problem with the scourge of copper thieves).

          1. unlucky says:

            NEMA 5 outlets are not designed for outdoor use and not well suited for it. And they become lose with repeated plugging and unplugging. J1772 is a much better solution, it was designed for this. You can use L1 J1772 but L2 is a better solution. If you want to keep power usage (and thus wire size) down you can just use low-power L2. But even at 1 or 2Kw 220V is more power efficient and more wire-cost efficient.

            1. Bill Howland says:

              “Nema 5 outlets are not designed for outdoor use”

              HAHAHA.. First thing – there is not such a thing as that. Unless you mean Nema 5-15 or 5-20. Every new home is required to have one of them in the front and rear of a house.

              Current requirements are for these outlets to be weatherproof while in operation, which is why they have such huge plexiglas covering.

              Sorry, but you don’t know what you are talking about.

              As far as ‘becoming weak’ – my 1959 house was built with quality Hubbel 1-15 (not 5-15 grounding, but ungrounded outlets) duplex outlets that have spring tension every bit as good as a new outlet – even in the kitchen counter locations where they have certainly seen thousands of plug/unplug cycles. There have been a few changed out over the years where the previous owner wanted to modernize, but no outlets have Worn Out.

              The fact that a few dime-store outlets have been made over the years does not mean all products are junk. But it shows your lack of familiarity with what is available, and what is and has been installed in the past.

              1. Nick says:

                Your claim that 5-15 outlets are good for daily charging use is wrong and dangerous.

                There will be fires. These outlets will become higher resistance as their springs wear, causing them to heat up. If you trip a breaker, you’ll need to call the property manager to reset it.

                Trying to use 5-15 outlets for general charging is such a bad idea it hurts.

                1. Bill Howland says:

                  The majority of VOLTS charge off of Nema 5-15’s and 5-20’s – the procedure per the VOLT ownwers manual is to put the charging cord back in the trunk when complete.

                  SO they have to cause fires supposedly but most of the existing volts use them with no trouble.

                  Any other idiots want to chime in on this?

              2. unlucky says:

                There is such a thing. NEMA 5 is a family of connectors.

                5-15 and 5-20 are particular ones. I didn’t say a particular one because I wanted to refer to both. I didn’t expect someone would come along and be as petty as you. Well, two can play at that game. There’s no such thing as a NEMA 5-15 or 5-20 — unless you mean a 5-15R or 5-20R.

                Okay, now on to actually trying to communicate instead of trying to hold knowledge above others.

                I am aware of those dumb “in use” covers since they were required to be installed on my house during an upgrade of some other stuff. They do not work with all devices you want to plug-in. And EVSEs in particular are less likely to work because the plug head is large (in case the EVSE is hung from it).

                Now I’m flashing back to the original NEMA 5s on the early ChargePoint chargers. Those were hilarious, they had to try to fit a door over the outlet and it ended up recessed in a weird way which made it hard to plug EVSEs in. Thank God those are gone and we just have J1772s now. And at least a “in-use” outdoor NEMA 5 isn’t as troublesome as those.

                You use an example of your outlets in your house as how outlets will last. You probably plug and unplug the outlets in your house on average once a month. The outlets wear out a lot quicker when used more often. You brag about a 50 years of use. That would be equivalent to six months of plugging-unplugging for a car charging outlet.

                NEMA 5s are not designed for this kind of application. J1772 is far better. Look at something like the PowerPost EVSE.

                1. Bill Howland says:

                  The fact is you don’t know what you are talking about since 5-15’s are legal. All GM cars are ‘approved’ to use them, and your narrow scope of experience is evident for those in the business to see.

                  Some J1772’s are not so great, for instance RAV4EV’s and the original BLINK 30 amp things that were fine at 15 but melted at 30.

                2. Bill Howland says:

                  Man, you should get out more – you are just about the most constipated commenter here.
                  My kitchen outlets get plugged and unplugged at least twice a day, since there simply isn’t enough free counter space to hold all the kitchen appliances at one time and they are put back in the cupboard after use; and the former owner/buider of the house had 8 kids running around. Those hubbels got plenty of use.

                  The fact that you are too cheap to buy a good ‘spec grade’ or ‘hospital grade’ outlet (thats right! they are good enough to be totally safe in HOSPITALS) doesn’t mean everyone buys junk.

                  You are simply ignorant of this simple fact.

                3. Bill Howland says:

                  Oh, and by the way, it is DOPEY to talk about the “Nema 5 family of products” since it also includes 5-30, 5-50 , as well as the LOCKING family of connectors, unlike this straight blade stuff.

                  What is dopey about it is the majority of the ‘family’ has never been commonly used for standard electric car charging apparatus, therefore it is dopey to talk about it.

        3. Pushmi-Pullyu says:

          “2) one overnight L2 charger can serve only one family per night – bad economy of scale.”

          That’s a completely invalid argument. We need to start installing L2 EV chargers everywhere people park their cars overnight, and this would be a good opportunity to start.

          It’s pretty silly to argue that we should install DCFC stations where nobody is going to use them for their intended purpose — which is en-route charging — and argue that it would somehow be “better” to install them in such places anyway, because people would misuse them for daily charging.

          It’s silly to argue that people who can’t charge a plug-in EV at home or at work should buy one anyway, and it’s even more silly to argue that we should use public money to support that silly idea!

      2. menorman says:

        It really depends. Quite a number of those people may not actually need to charge on a daily basis because they don’t drive that far. They may very well be able to get away with stopping by a DCFC station once or twice a week, especially in a Bolt or other 200+ mile range EV.

        1. Pushmi-Pullyu says:

          That’s a good argument in favor of multiple PEV owners sharing a single parking stall with a L2 charger installed. That is not a good argument in favor of misusing public DCFC stations for daily charging by people who foolishly bought a PEV when they couldn’t slow-charge at home or at work.

          Why in the world would you advocate wearing out the battery pack faster than necessary and blocking the charger from use by those who need it for its intended purpose: en-route charging?

    2. menorman says:

      Yes, and there’s also the “low-income” community of DTLA, at least based on the CalEnviroScreen tool. I don’t think many people would disagree that DTLA is an appropriate place for more EV charging infrastructure.

      1. SparkEV says:

        Recycling is one way for the homeless to make money. With a fair number of EV chargers with lots of copper, they become very tempting targets.

        Actually one possibility is to hire some homeless people as security guards at chargers. I don’t mean the ones with mental health issues (lots of them are), but those who want to get out of homeless situation and cleaning up. But I don’t want that money to come from VW settlement.

  6. Shane says:

    Let’s see, public chargers in the ghetto. No, there’s no problem with that.

    Just tell us ignorant suburbanites which color shirt to wear at each charger do we don’t get shot.

  7. unlucky says:

    Called it. So they, as I suggested, have indicated they can do this with ease by doing it with DCFCs near highways. They’re still accessible, you just move them a few miles into a zipcode that meets the specs you need.

    I don’t see how this is a win really. It means fewer services and perhaps more danger for those waiting for their car to charge. And the locals are less likely to use the DCFCs anyway because they charge a premium over AC charging.

    I do see the temptation to guide public money into low-income areas because you don’t want to just concentrate it in the rich areas. But you also don’t want to waste the public money on good wishes instead of improving the EV experience as much as possible.

    1. menorman says:

      Nothing like elitists to tell those who aren’t rolling in dough what they do and don’t deserve or can use. Contrary to what you apparently believe, there are people in low-income communities who own electric cars and that number is guaranteed to continue to rise as more options become available and the used market grows. If you’re scared to use EV infrastructure in those communities, then please by all means stay on the freeway and go somewhere “safe”. The rest of the community will be glad to find that the charger is available for use.

      1. unlucky says:

        This has nothing to do with elitism or what the poor shouldn’t do.

        These chargers will be located near highways. Anyone, poor or rich can get to them.

        Putting DCFCs near highways is not a great way to provide daily-use driving for rich or poor.

        As to me being scared, if I’m scared (and others) then is the infrastructure delivering as well as it could if it were put in a place where people (rich and poor) were not scared?

        Beyond being scared, if the charger is put in a place where people can do something while charging (shop, etc.) is that not better for everyone than if it is located in a poorer area where such things aren’t available?

        You appear to have a massive chip on your shoulder about enforced equality regardless of sensible considerations. That’s fine but it doesn’t mean others should follow along.

        1. Pushmi-Pullyu says:

          “Putting DCFCs near highways is not a great way to provide daily-use driving for rich or poor.”

          Wut?

          The best placement for DCFC stations is wherever there is a lot of traffic. That certainly includes well-traveled highways.

          A secondary placement should be DCFC stations well spaced out to provide travel over the widest possible areas, as Tesla has done. Again, that would prioritize placement as near as possible to major highways.

          “Daily use” driving should, with only rare exceptions, be supported only by slow charging, L1 or L2, and not by DCFC charging except in unusual circumstances. If someone is frequently charging at a DCFC station because they couldn’t charge overnight at a L1 or L2 station, then that person needs to either move or else sell their PEV and buy a car which better suits their needs.

  8. WVhybrid says:

    I’m seeing the same sort of argument that power companies used to make against selling electricity to farmers. It took the depression and the Rural Electric Co-ops to electrify the American farms. Back then it was poor people don’t deserve electricity and can’t afford to pay for it. Now I’m seeing an argument that poor people can’t afford electric cars and won’t plug in. I call BS.

    1. SparkEV says:

      No, the argument is that poor areas are disproportionately prone to violent crime, and charging there will result in beatings, robbery, rape, murder in far higher probability, especially since you’d be hanging out with your “fancy” electric car.

      Here’s a simple fact: more US citizens die/maimed/seriously hurt in poor area crimes than in war zones. Poor people aren’t stupid; they won’t hang out at charging stations when it’s more dangerous to be out than in war zones.

      1. unlucky says:

        I would expect that copper thieves are more likely to vandalize DCFCs in poor areas too. Heck, probably ordinary vandals too. More repairs means higher pricing.

      2. Get Real says:

        Because Faux News or Breitbart told you so.

        More malignant narcissism by the Alt Right.

        Thats right, screw the working poor so those that have more can have even more.

        1. SparkEV says:

          If you don’t think crime occurs disproportionately in poor areas, you need to get real. Just because socialist TV (aka, MSNBC) tells you that poor areas are just as great as rich areas doesn’t mean that it is.

          1. Mark.ca says:

            We should fence out these areas where poors live. Problem solved, right Sparky?
            If you are serious about ev and want them to succeed then the last thing you want is for them to be a rich people toy.

            1. unlucky says:

              You’re inventing things and putting them into other people’s mouths. SparkEV never said EVs should remain rich people’s toys.

              New technologies in general start with those who have more money. Because those people have more discretionary income to risk on new ideas that might not pan out.

              Demonizing those who can afford EVs isn’t helping anyone.

              1. Mark.ca says:

                It’s a simple correlation, I thought an easy one to make.
                By restricting charging to only good areas what message are you sending? You following this?

                1. unlucky says:

                  Again making up things to put into people’s mouths.

                  I’m not restricting charging to only good area. I’m saying putting infrastructure in bad areas first (and only for a while) is not a good use of it. DCFC are for through-travelers, put them in areas where people aren’t afraid to go and can go do something while they charge. Those (and being on a major route) should be the major criteria.

                  Local charging should be handled with AC. These bad areas we are talking about here are not areas with a lot of apartments. That’s not how poor towns on major throughways in California work. They instead of a lot of people in houses (some rented) and small apartment complexes. Create programs to help them AC charge at home. Free EVSEs, etc. It’ll be cheaper for the people using it anyway. And they are looking to save money.

                  And then put the DCFCs in the locations where they are best put for through travelers to use them.

            2. SparkEV says:

              Unlike what Socialist TV tells you, income in US is not static class. There’s huge mobility (ie, most poor are not poor after about a decade). If you fence in people, you destroy that mobility. That’s the last thing you want.

              But then, socialists are all about class warfare so I understand how some (you?) would want the poor to never get ahead.

          2. Asak says:

            Crime even in CAs poorer areas actually isn’t that bad relative to other areas of the country. Oakland or Stockton isn’t Baltimore or Chicago.

      3. menorman says:

        The only “fancy” EVs currently on the market are Teslas. Everything else is mundane, especially since half of them are just (PH)EV conversions of otherwise normal cars anyway. The only real dedicated EV model is the Leaf and people think it’s a Versa, which definitely isn’t unfamiliar to low-income communities.

        Also, it’s highly inflammatory and insensitive to keep insisting that crime only happens in low-income neighborhoods. It doesn’t. It happens everywhere. If you’re afraid of getting robbed in a low-income community, then by all means please stay on the freeway and go to your “safe” place to charge. But it’s despicable to keep insisting that low-income communities don’t deserve to have the ability to access a charger near their homes because you’re afraid of their neighborhood.

        1. unlucky says:

          Somehow the Bolt EV doesn’t exist in your world?

          I’m not dumb enough to think thieves are stupid. I can tell the difference between car models and know which are more expensive. There’s no reason to think thieves can’t.

          Who said anything about near neighborhoods? These installations will be near highways. If they are near neighborhoods (rich or poor) it will be by coincidence only, not by design.

          This is the easiest thing to do, to move to another zipcode. It means there will be a DCFC in Madera California instead of Herndon. And that’ll mean nothing except that it’ll be a bit easier for people to pay expensive DC charging rates in Madera and a little less easy in Herndon instead of vice-versa.

        2. SparkEV says:

          Politically correct nonsense is distorting your perception of reality.

          “disproportionately prone to violent crime” doesn’t mean crime only occur in poor areas. If you think the crime distribution is the same in all areas, you are delusional. There’s a reason why the poor areas are “poor”, and it’s because they’re less desirable to live there. One big reason why less desirable is due to (hugely) increased crime.

          What I noticed is that people who say stupid things like crime is equally distributed is that they were never poor. Go live there a while and be poor, and the reality will slap you silly. I got “slapped around” a bit when I was poor and lived in those areas.

          1. Asak says:

            The thing is that overall crime levels are not that bad , certainly not to the point where you need to be wetting yourself if you find yourself in a low income neighborhood.

    2. Pushmi-Pullyu says:

      “I’m seeing the same sort of argument that power companies used to make against selling electricity to farmers. It took the depression and the Rural Electric Co-ops to electrify the American farms.”

      False analogy. That is not at all the same situation.

      The purpose of DCFC stations isn’t daily charging, despite the fact that some here are actually making that silly argument. The purpose of DCFC stations is to extend the range of plug-in EVs, not to charge them overnight.

      Arguing that public funds should be used to help people in rural areas install L2 chargers for overnight charging… that might be a valid argument, altho I think it’s quite a bit too soon for that. We didn’t see public funds used for rural electrification when only 1% of the houses in the USA were electrified!

      Arguing for DCFC stations to be installed in rural ares is like arguing for building the Interstate highway system in the horse-and-buggy era. Let’s let things develop a bit first, hmmm? When a sizable portion of automobiles on the road are PEVs, then it will be time to start talking about using public funds to install and maintain DCFC stations in rural areas where there isn’t enough traffic to support them on a commercial basis.

  9. DJ says:

    Can’t they just mail a few pounds of copper to everyone in the area instead and call it a day?

    Seriously, by forcing these to go in to certain areas and maintain them they will be able to put fewer stations in overall.

    All stations will be vandalized somewhat but if you knowingly put chargers in areas where they are more likely to be vandalized that means fewer you will put in overall.

    While it sounds like they mean well I don’t see this part of it going particularly well. Would like to be proven wrong though.

    1. Asak says:

      Have you ever actually visited a low income area in CA? We’re not talking about Flint, MI here.

  10. Get Real says:

    You can sure tell the Trump voters here.
    Making America White Again!

    1. SparkEV says:

      America is already majority white, there’s no need to make it white again.

      Dump is about idiotic rhetoric of late 19th century that led to Chinese exclusion act. If you substitute Mexicans for Chinese, it’s pretty much the same idiocy. Dump supports who bitch about “get in line” have no idea that the line really doesn’t exist and that no family ties means several hundred years of waiting, effectively exclusionary.

      Of course, there’s more, such as talk of trade war via tariffs that led to world-wide depression in the 30’s.

      Dump’s slogan should be “Make America idiot again”.

    2. Pushmi-Pullyu says:

      “You can sure tell the Trump voters here.
      Making America White Again!”

      So… your argument is that everyone who actually faces the reality of areas of urban blight coinciding with high crime areas; everyone who knows what happened to pay phones in public places and why those are almost all gone… we all voted for El Trumpo.

      Well, guess what? You’re wrong. In my case, you couldn’t be more wrong. I’ll be very happy when El Trumpo is impeached and, hopefully, voted out of office; it can’t happen soon enough for me.

  11. EV says:

    Can some one please explain to me whats the Logic of income levels for car pool stickers. Like making family earning more than 250K not be eligible for HOV stickers..

    While i completely CA clean industry , like
    1) EV rebates on not the distance travelled , but based only on income level
    2) Limit on 50 bottles on the CA 5cents refund , a policy to help the homeless and call it environmental

    But the HOV sticker income level looks illegal and i just cannot understand the justification

    1. Mark.ca says:

      There is only a restriction on the CA rebate $ not on the sticker for carpool…where did you hear that?

      1. EV says:

        http://www.greencarreports.com/news/1105760_ca-plug-in-carpool-lane-access-bill-up-for-vote-heres-why-some-oppose-it

        http://www.greencarreports.com/news/1106179_california-removes-limit-on-carpool-access-for-plug-in-hybrids

        even if this is not passed, i cannot understand the logic

        Ev rebate based on income and not on environment impact. no consideration , if some one even drives the EV.
        Clean tech funds are not for poverty reduction , but environmental impact.

        This is based or recommendations of bureaucrats , and we are forced to pay salaries for them.

        1. Mark.ca says:

          Yes, that would make no sense so I don’t expect it to pass. They should however change the rules for the green sticker a bit and increase the ev range required. To me the prime should not qualify.

    2. unlucky says:

      There’s no income level criteria for carpool stickers. The income level criteria apply to the state rebates, not to the carpool stickers.

      1. Asak says:

        Well, I suppose if you’re really destitute then you can’t afford the $30 application fee. Of course, in that case good luck affording insurance or the electricity to operate the car in the first place.

  12. Mark.ca says:

    Lease of course….

  13. Bill Howland says:

    About once a week I plug my car in, in an area considered a Ghetto area. But I can walk pretty fast and had to one time..

    The good part is the docking station is always available, even though someone took a knife to the rubber cords – but then found out they were only a few #10, and #18 wires..

    What surprises me a bit is VW agreeing to put all this money into the US market. Even GM decided to basically abandon Europe.

    1. Mark.ca says:

      Bill, this is part of the fine they agreed to pay for the disel cheating scandal. A small price to pay to keep selling cars in one of the biggest markets in US.

      1. Bill Howland says:

        I merely said I was surprised.

  14. Pushmi-Pullyu says:

    I’m sure copper thieves living in California eagerly look forward to EV chargers being installed in lonely, crime-ridden areas where they will be rarely if ever used.

    The rest of us… not so much.

    *Sigh*

Leave a Reply