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

Robert Bruninga bruninga at usna.edu
Thu Apr 6 16:39:49 EDT 2017

That was the stupid gas-tank/gas-station legacy thinking bureaucrats

But in June last year, common sense prevailed and Federal Policy now allows
pay-by-the-month of $6 per bi-weekly pay period for daily charging from any
existing or routinely installed 120v outlet.  Here is the link:

It  was the height of stupidity to spend $10,000 for an internet linked
credit card enabled charger to collect about 60 cents a day from the same
person every day.  WHen a $15 outlet can do the same thing and a flat
payment system by the month is trivial.

Besides, people buy EVs for daily commuting.  ANd when they do, they drive
it EVERYDAY and will want to plugin every day, so its the same cost everhy
day, and that is why it only makes sense to simply pay by the month.

No EV owner wants a free ride.  What they want is a legal mechanism to plug
in and a method to pay for it.

That is now enacted in law for federal employees.


On Wed, Apr 5, 2017 at 11:22 PM, KF4LVZ <aprssigZbr6 at acarver.net> 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.
> >>
> >
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.tapr.org/pipermail/aprssig_lists.tapr.org/attachments/20170406/94062d83/attachment.html>

More information about the aprssig mailing list