[saidajigumi]

This is precisely what the linked article says. From the section "Charging Incentives":

“And it’s not just California and Western states. All states may need to rethink electricity pricing structures as their EV charging needs increase and their grid changes,” added Powell, who recently took a postdoctoral research position at ETH Zurich.

The article also includes other interesting and more nuanced policy details than just "change pricing structure", such as:

Another issue with electricity pricing design is charging commercial and industrial customers big fees based on their peak electricity use. This can disincentivize employers from installing chargers, especially once half or more of their employees have EVs. [...]

So yes, there are weird red herrings in this thread from people who want a technology first and a solution second (or never) and/or who don't understand design of incentive structures. But this work doesn't appear suffer from those problems.

[to11mtm]

> Another issue with electricity pricing design is charging commercial and industrial customers big fees based on their peak electricity use. This can disincentivize employers from installing chargers, especially once half or more of their employees have EVs. [...]

Well, I don't know what to say aside from we would need a lot of work to have it 'both ways'.

By that I mean, if we expect everyone to charge their cars during the day, especially 'peak hours' in a given industrial area, there's a chance that the line and/or station capacity would have to be increased. A large part of the allure of 'night charging' is that it avoids requiring major grid upgrades, and also possibly opens up better uses around certain energy sources quirks. Nuclear, water power, geothermal, all three to some extent have 'consistent load' properties where either it takes time to adjust power output, or power output can be consistent both day and night with minimal incremental cost, vs the need to install additional capacity for extra day load.

[hakcermani]

It can incentivize rooftop solar which can supply the increased charging demand.

[kodah]

> This can disincentivize employers from installing chargers, especially once half or more of their employees have EVs.

> So yes, there are weird red herrings in this thread from people who want a technology first and a solution second (or never) and/or who don't understand design of incentive structures.

Speaking of incentive structures, one of my former employers installed EV chargers in all of the bottom floors of our parking garage while explicitly not allowing non-EVs to park in those spaces. I was left parking my hybrid on the roof in a desert climate where my car would continually get covered with pollen.

Naturally, I did what they were trying to incentivize: I looked at EVs. I quickly discovered that the cheaper models have limited usecases; for instance, the road trips I go on would now be out of the picture. The more expensive ones are much more functional but come at a high price that I've never personally spent on a car.

There's also the fact that I didn't have anywhere to charge it except public spaces where I'd have to awkwardly wait for hours because I lived in an apartment. In order to get a 240v plug in my garage I would need to pay for it myself.

These policies, as they invade the workforce, need to be looked at from a lens that doesn't end up doing harm in the end.

[mook]

> Speaking of incentive structures, one of my former employers installed EV chargers in all of the bottom floors of our parking garage while explicitly not allowing non-EVs to park in those spaces.

Sounds like it worked out great for them — people who could afford living in single detached houses (generally the richer ones, and therefore generally the management) now get reserved parking out of the pollen. The people who are inconvenienced (i.e. you) weren't the people involved in the decision anyway.

[morsch]

Buy a small EV for everyday trips and rent another car for road trips. Nobody in our car culture, where people drive F150s just in case they need them; nobody is going to do that, but environmentally it'd be much preferable to everybody getting a big Tesla weighing several tons.

Financially it works out for a couple of road trips a year, not so much if you're doing it a couple of times a month.

[nikau]

Or get a plug in hybrid that results in the convenience of one car but most of the environmental/cost benefits.

[bagels]

The harm is polen on your car? It's harm, sure, but seems pretty minor at this point.

[kodah]

I have pretty bad allergies, the pollen messed with me quite a bit.

The real harm I think is giving too many perceived privileges to something that is currently a luxury.

[samizdette]

Did you look at plug-in hybrids? They can use the chargers.

[themitigating]

Seems that commercial power costs less than residential. Sometimes the difference is negligible but other times it's significant. I know residential lines cost much more to maintain because of the distances but that doesn't apply to residential apartments buildings in cities and I believe there's a seperate charge for that.

Why?

https://www.eia.gov/electricity/monthly/epm_table_grapher.ph...

[jjav]

I rent an office very near my house. The PG&E rate for peak time at the office is over 20c cheaper than at my house. Not very fair to residental usage.