[aprssig] It's that time again. (at least consider an EV)

[Greg Clark]

Unless I'm guaranteed a place to charge my car at the destination, I won't
consider travelling farther than 1/2 of my EV car's range -- I can't even
count on that at work -- and it's a very proactive EV friendly company.
 (rant:  I wish that the Tesla owners would stop taking advantage of the
close-in parking spots).  But -- I love my Chevy Spark for my daily 40 mile
round trip commute!

Greg K7RKT

On Wed, Apr 5, 2017 at 9:02 PM, Greg D <ko6th.greg at gmail.com> wrote:

> Wow, "legal magic" at its finest.
>
> Is there a coin slot on the toaster and microwave oven in the break
> room?  Or do the employees get an itemized "toasted bagel allowance" in
> their yearly benefits report?
>
> This is making my head hurt.  Somebody is trying too hard with the wrong
> objective.
>
> Greg  KO6TH
>
>
> KF4LVZ wrote:
> > It was explained to us that various documents combine via legal-magic to
> > become a form of theft from the government (specifically
> > misappropriation of government resources).
> >
> > The first case:  A simple outlet available for plugging in a car would
> > mean stealing electricity/equivalent value because there's no means to
> > meter it and bill for it directly by the government.  The consumption of
> > the car exceeds "incidental use" limits.  We don't know the limit but
> > cell phones are under the limit where the cost of checking exceeds the
> > loss so they don't bother to check.  However, we asked and technically
> > charging a personal phone at work does run afoul of the same rules.
> >
> > The second case:  The kiosk-style chargers with credit-card readers
> > apparently didn't work either because they have a standby/operating
> > power that isn't billed to the customer (or when there's no one there
> > charging) and it ends up being a cost to the government again (no meter
> > on the kiosk and no billing method to get money back from the kiosk
> > operator).
> >
> > To cite an example, an employee was charging their electric scooter
> > using an outdoor outlet on one of the buildings (an ordinary outlet most
> > likely for use by maintenance crews).  The employee was warned not to do
> > that again for the above reason.
> >
> > As for the program to encourage purchase with a tax credit, the reason
> > that is acceptable would be that the tax credit comes from money the
> > person would otherwise be paying to the government (since it comes off
> > of your 1040 when you calculate taxes owed).  No other taxpayer paid
> > your specific credit.  However, charging your car incurs a cost by using
> > electricity.  That electricity cost adds to the operating costs of the
> > facility and is eventually paid by the government through tax money
> > collected from all taxpayers.
> >
> > On 2017-04-05 18:10, Greg D wrote:
> >> This one is news to me.  What is the rationale for not being allowed to
> have EV
> >> charging?  How can the Feds have programs that encourage the purchase
> of EVs
> >> (e.g. tax credits), but disallow their use?  The mind boggles.
> >>
> >> Greg  KO6TH
> >>
> >>
> >> KF4LVZ wrote:
> >>>>   > ...in a government facility, it turns out you*can't*   have a
> station...
> >>>>> After years of letter writing that has changed!  The Federal Policy
> now is to
> >>>>> let any EV pluginto any available outlet for a fixed paymend of
> about $15 per
> >>>>> month.  And local agencies can even use existing maintenance funds
> to install
> >>>>> additional standard 120v oiutlets.
> >>> That doesn't appear to have trickled down to all agencies.  The one I
> >>> work for has already stated they're still not allowed to add charging
> >>> stations and were told to remove the ones that were in place.
> >>>
>
> _______________________________________________
> aprssig mailing list
> aprssig at tapr.org
> http://www.tapr.org/mailman/listinfo/aprssig
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.tapr.org/pipermail/aprssig_lists.tapr.org/attachments/20170405/fb07b8e9/attachment.html>