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

[david vanhorn]

So given that my current plan is a gasoline ford transit van... Any hints
or kinks?

On Apr 6, 2017 2:40 PM, "Robert Bruninga" <bruninga at usna.edu> wrote:

> Yes,
> That was the stupid gas-tank/gas-station legacy thinking bureaucrats
> thinking.
>
> 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:
> https://www.fedcenter.gov/_kd/Items/actions.cfm?action=Show&
> item_id=29808&destination=ShowItem
>
> 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.
>
> Bob, WB4APR
>
> 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.
>> >>
>> >
>>
>>
>
> _______________________________________________
> 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/20170406/d25fa62a/attachment.html>