Nissan & Georgia Power Team Up To Offer $1,000 Rebate Per Workplace EVSE

MAR 23 2015 BY MARK KANE 18

Charging at work

Charging at work

Nissan joins Georgia Power in a rebate program for charging station installations at workplaces.

Together they offer $1,000 for each new (up to 10 per workplace) 240-volt, Level 2 charging point for local employers (in service area) who have 100 or more employees.

$500 comes from Nissan, while another $500 comes from Georgia Power (since 2014). Nissan said that its participation in the program will run through June 30, 2015, so you’d better hurry up.

“Atlanta is already America’s #1 market for the zero emission Nissan LEAF and #2 city in the country for overall EV adoption, trailing only San Francisco. The City of Atlanta, Georgia Power and Nissan recognize the environmental and economic benefits of making Georgia the nation’s leader in EV adoption. With this funding support, Nissan is joining Georgia Power to help make EV charging readily available across the city.”

“Nissan has already worked with numerous companies and organizations in metro Atlanta to facilitate workplace charging, including Ponce City Market and Agnes Scott College. The automaker funded the installation of public fast chargers at key locations such as Atlantic Station, a site co-funded by Georgia Power, which is the most visited EV charge site in Georgia.”

Details are available at: www.georgiapower.com/ev

Brendan Jones, director, Electric Vehicle Sales and Infrastructure Deployment, Nissan said:

“While most EV drivers plug in at home overnight, workplace charging enhances the LEAF ownership experience and expands the number of miles a LEAF driver can go on power produced here in Georgia. Nissan is investing to support charging both in the community and at the workplace for the thousands of LEAF owners in Atlanta, and Georgia Power is a great partner who shares that commitment.”

Atlanta Mayor Kasim Reed commented:

“The City of Atlanta recognizes the importance of supporting the demand for charging infrastructure at workplaces across the city. The rebates and incentives offered by Georgia Power and Nissan create an attractive environment for commuters to choose an electric vehicle and will help Atlanta remain a national leader for electric vehicle sales. We commend both companies for recognizing the opportunity to support workplace charging and for presenting solutions that EV owners and their employers can truly benefit from.”

Mike Hazelton, senior vice president of marketing for Georgia Power remarked:

“Our electric transportation program continues to demonstrate our commitment to delivering products and services that meet the changing needs of our customers. The response to our rebate program for business customers in just a few months has been outstanding, and this new matching rebate from Nissan is going to provide an even greater incentive for Georgia businesses to provide onsite charging.”

Categories: Charging, Nissan

Tags: ,

Leave a Reply

18 Comments on "Nissan & Georgia Power Team Up To Offer $1,000 Rebate Per Workplace EVSE"

newest oldest most voted

I assume these are J1772 chargers?

Does anyone know if Tesla is doing free workplace chargers? I know they will give restaurants & hotels free chargers + install, but was thinking maybe they could do it for all businesses if it’s available to the public too.

Woops, read right past this part “240-volt, Level 2 charging point”

Ok so I assume these will be Aerovironments.

I’m not sure I understand Nissan’s Motivation unless it is Truly Charitable.

Georgia Power I’d think would have a motivation to make sure there is plenty of electric usage for the upcoming two huge Ap-1000 Nuclear Plants that no one needs.

Assuming totally charitable, and you can install ANY level 2 charging docking station, I’d assume employers would limit the current draw to 200 @ 12 amps.

Those 2 Nuclear Plants could then charge a million EV’s simultaneously during the worst time of the day, with no impact, or probably more provided they don’t ban Solar Energy in Georgia (unless their GP’s).

You are not sure why the company behind the #1 selling EV would want more chargers out there? I think you understand it.

@Bill

your quote:
“Georgia Power for the upcoming two huge Ap-1000 Nuclear Plants that no one needs.”

What a huge generalization.

Nuclear power is the most hated source of power and it should not be. The NPP’s in our country have done more to reduce GHG emissions than anything we have done.

The problem is that the general public has an genetically inherited fear of Nuclear because it makes them think of a bomb.

The safety numbers on Nuclear are about a factor of 10000 better than oil.

Even though they are expensive they are still cheaper than North sea wind.

Please go to Fukushima Prefecture and help them do that little clean up job. If you’ve been reading the posts I quoted from the Union of Concerned Scientists, the electricity made by the 2 new nukes will be almost double the current price, and that is will 1/2 the price subsidized by taxpayers making the ultimate cost of the electricity 3 to 4 times what it costs currently there. And as far as living NEAR a nuclear plant, its perfectly safe most of the time, the same as Cigarette Smoking is perfectly safe. There is not one person you can PROVE had any health problems due to Cigarette Smoking. Nuclear power arguments are like that…. My watch is more radioactive than a Nuclear Plant (except for ‘Routine Releases’). Not one person officially died in the aftermath of 3/11/11, although the Fukushima 50 are pretty much all gone, but you can’t blame that on Nuclear Power since everyone dies anyway. It is illegal for Doctors or other health professionals to state Radiation as a cause of anything. And this argument that is continually coached in Doseage doesn’t really have anything to do with health. The health risk is Ingestion. But this… Read more »

Bill Howland: “Union of Concerned Scientists, the electricity made by the 2 new nukes will be almost double the current price, and that is will 1/2 the price subsidized by taxpayers making the ultimate cost of the electricity 3 to 4 times what it costs currently there.”

Unfortunately, the Union of Concerned Scientists is extremely agenda driven, and is filled with the same kneejerk anti-nuke crowd that has been around since the 70’s.

The Department of Energy’s analysis of nuclear puts the the levelized cost of electricity (LCOE) for nuclear on par with coal ($95.6/MWh coal vs. $96.1/MWh nuclear). http://www.eia.gov/forecasts/aeo/pdf/electricity_generation.pdf

By the way, I grew up a few miles from Three Mile Island, and I’m glad to have not been as close to a coal plant as I was to TMI. Whether or not it was necessary our schools cancelled outside recess and sports during the TMI disaster. But there was no other impact to the locals (except for the small town of Middletown which was evacuated). And yes the worst commercial nuclear disaster in the western hemisphere, the TMI meltdown, was a disaster for the plant but not for any people.

You might want to think about this: “…March 24, 2009 30 Years and Counting People Died at Three Mile Island by HARVEY WASSERMAN People died–and are still dying–at Three Mile Island. As the thirtieth anniversary of America’s most infamous industrial accident approaches, we mourn the deaths that accompanied the biggest string of lies ever told in US industrial history. As news of the accident poured into the global media, the public was assured there were no radiation releases. That quickly proved to be false. The public was then told the releases were controlled and done purposely to alleviate pressure on the core. Both those assertions were false. The public was told the releases were “insignificant.” But stack monitors were saturated and unusable, and the Nuclear Regulatory Commission later told Congress it did not know—and STILL does not know—how much radiation was released at Three Mile Island, or where it went. Using unsubstantiated estimates of how much radiation was released, the government issued average doses allegedly received by people in the region, which it assured the public were safe. But the estimates were utterly meaningless, among other things ignoring the likelihood that high doses of concentrated fallout could come down heavily… Read more »

THis is a car blog substantially so I’m minimizing my comments, however, the DOE’s cost projection doesn’t include taxpayer subsidy, and any averages don’t apply to the SPECIFIC cost of the 2 nukes being built in Georgia.

2nd point: All Nuke proponents always couch their language in “DOSEAGE” which is a meaningless figure. Whole body exposure has nothing to do with the health of a person. What he or she has INGESTED is the important point. A person can have a low overall doseage and die, since the ingested ‘fuel flea’ is making localized cancer and leukemia.

“…Dr. Helen Caldicott (letter, Oct. 31) refers to “a New York Academy of Sciences report from 2009” on the Chernobyl disaster when estimating that “nearly a million have already died from this catastrophe.” Originally published in Russian, the collection of papers in the Chernobyl volume published by the academy were written by scientists who say they summarized the information about the health and environmental consequences of the Chernobyl disaster from several hundred papers previously published in Slavic language publications. The Chernobyl volume is merely a translation of the original Russian publication….” The NY Academy of sciences then goes on to say that they didn’t commission the work, but its just 5000 research papers from Belarus Doctors and Physicists. And that if you add up all the casualties its around 985,000. OF course, they are now distancing themselves from it, but they thought it was authoritative enough initially to publish it at the time. So, its a serious document. Oh, and its useless to point out, but the most efficacious greenhouse gas is water. So unless you’ve found a way to drain the Atlantic and Pacific, I’m not worried. I am worried however in the Oxygen generating capacity of the first… Read more »

GeorgeS said:

“The [nuclear power plants] in our country have done more to reduce GHG emissions than anything we have done.

The problem is that the general public has an genetically inherited fear of Nuclear because it makes them think of a bomb.”

That, and the way the news media keeps whipping up hysteria over “RADIATION!!”, as though somehow being sickened or killed by that is worse than being sickened or killed by some other form of pollution from an industrial accident.

If people were actually educated on the health hazards of the air pollution from coal-fired power plants — estimated to kill something between 15,000 and 30,000 Americans each and every single year (obviously many, many more worldwide), and compared that to the much, much lower number of people killed during the worst commercial nuclear power disaster — 4000 for Chernobyl, and only once — then every sensible person would be clamoring to tear down all the coal-fired plants and replace them with nuclear power plants as soon as humanly possible.

Don’t over think this.It’s and incentive to go green. I.E the EVs. Bombs? Really? Radiation? Do you have a microwave oven? How do you think you food is heated so quickly?

The biggest negative I can find with Coal fired power plants is what they do with a portion of the Coal-Ash residue. That which they use for Bricks or Portland Cement I’m fine with, Its the deliberate Atmospheric uses for Coal-Ash that I’m dead set against, and so far, I think only Shasta County, California has officially complained. As far as tens of thousands dieing from coal plants, I’d like to see real proof of this. 100 years ago a given power plant had to use 3-4 times as much coal for a given output since the efficiencies were only around 8% at best. Plus everyone heated their homes with coal. So those numbers always quoted STINK since they don’t pass the smell test. Just as gas powered cars are about 100 times cleaner than they used to be, the same goes for coal fired plants, at least in the US. Buffalo, NY used to have a problem with some pollution from a Coal fired plant, but it was the huge Canadian Nantikoke plant 50 miles west. Contrary to popular belief, emission standards for coal plants in Canada were far, far more lax than in the states, and Buffalo got… Read more »

Requiring a minimum of 100 employees sounds unnecessarily restrictive… Why not smaller businesses as well?

Good question, wouldn`t you want to help out the small business owner too?

$500 from each . . . not a lot of money. And they’ll both see returns from this if they can get more EV buyers. (Nissan will sell Leafs and power company sells more power.)

Seems like a win-win. They should expand that deal all across the country.

I thought this was a EV board – not a Nuke discussion.

Its amazing how 1/2 of a one sentence incidental comment can bring out such religious sensitivities from EV owners that then I’m forced to dispute.

But sometimes the tangential issues are fun to think about also.