Effective Government Funding Policies for Multi-Unit Residential EV Charging Infrastructure

Government policies aimed at supporting electric vehicle (EV) charging infrastructure in multi-unit residential properties must address the needs of all residents to ensure equitable access to charging facilities. This article will discuss examples of policies that are effective in providing convenient, cost-effective, and efficient EV charging solutions for residents in multi-unit properties.

Every electric vehicle owner only cares about three main factors when choosing the right electric vehicle charger:

    .1 How convenient is it to use 
    .2 Is my car fully charged the next morning 
    .3 Is the usage cost fair 

This article also covers
  •  Some strategies to avoid when designing an incentive program 
  •  Optimal Strategy for an Incentive Program 

Charger Convenience


For residents in multi-unit properties, sharing EV chargers can be highly inconvenient, leading to conflicts and usage issues. Creating usage policies will never solve this issue for the residents since no one wants to come down at 2am to move their vehicle allowing someone else to plug in. To prevent such problems, government funding policies should aim to provide a dedicated EV charger for each resident who owns an electric vehicle.

Best strategy is to aim to provide a dedicated charger for every resident who owns an electric vehicle.

This approach offers several benefits for residents:
  • Provides them with a piece of mind and significantly reduces their range anxiety
  • Residents will always have a charger available for them when they get back home.
  • Avoids any unnecessary conflicts between the residents since they don't have to share chargers.


Charger Speed


The only factor an EV owner cares about when it comes to charging speed is that their vehicle is fully charged the next time they need to use it.

EV owners primarily need their vehicles to be fully charged when they need to use them. Since most electric vehicles are parked at residential properties for over 10 hours each night, Level 1 (120V) charging can often meet their daily needs. Effective incentive programs should include Level 1 charging as an option for all eligible residents. Learn more:  The surprising data behind Level 1 charging 

Best incentive programs focus on providing enough power to an electric vehicle that gets them fully charged the next day and because of that Level 1 (120V) charging needs to be provided as an option for all incentive programs.


Charger Usage Cost


While many incentive programs focus on the initial installation cost of EV chargers, it is essential to consider the ongoing fees associated with maintenance and servicing.

EV chargers are not one-time investments like bicycle racks; they require regular upkeep that can significantly impact the property's overall expenses.

A 20-year life cycle cost study conducted by AES Engineering revealed that Level 2 chargers have an average cost of $9,000 per unit, while Level 1 outlets cost around $900 over the same period. Government funding policies should therefore account for long-term costs to prevent increased living expenses for residents and/or property owners.

Providing incentives that solely offset the upfront installation expenses and possibly a limited period of services can ultimately result in a long-term escalation of the cost of living for all occupants of the property.

Residents may choose to park their vehicles on their own property due to limited parking options, however, they cannot be obligated to charge their electric vehicles within their apartment. In the event that property owners raise the cost of usage to offset ongoing or service expenses, residents may opt to use public charging stations instead of the EV chargers located on the property. Consequently, property owners may be compelled to remove the EV chargers to avoid incurring costs, which would result in the forfeiture of the incentives that were initially provided for their installation.


Some strategies to avoid when designing an incentive program.

1- Do not provide incentives as a percentage of the installation cost


Policies that provide support as a percentage of the installation cost, with a cap, may benefit richer buildings that generally do not need the support.

For example, if an incentive program pays for 50% of the cost of EV infrastructure up to a maximum of $50,000 per property, a property with a cost of installation of $200,000 will receive a $50,000 incentive, bringing down the entire cost to $150,000. However, if the residents of the property are willing to pay $1,500 out of pocket, adding another $500 will not make a significant difference for them.

In contrast, properties that do not have the budget to pay even $500 out of pocket will be left out of the incentive program.


2- Do not provide incentives for a specific type of a charger


Incentive programs that focus only on a specific level of charging, such as Level 2 chargers, only support EV charging companies and not EV owners or properties.

Electric vehicle charging companies often take advantage of incentive programs to increase the cost of their chargers because a portion of the cost is covered by a government incentive program. Same charger that can purchased at $600 from Amazon will be sold at $2,500 to multi unit properties because there is a incentive to cover a portion of the cost.

It is essential to ensure that incentive programs provide options for all levels of charging equally, so electric vehicle charging companies feel the need to compete with lower cost options.


3- Do not mandate EV chargers to have built-in cables


Every electric vehicle comes with a charging cable, so supporting chargers that have built-in cables (J1772 port) will only increase the maintenance cost of the device and will not add any additional benefits.

It is important to allow EV owners to have the option to use their own charging cables, reducing the cost and maintenance of the charging infrastructure.



4- Do not support a subset of the electric mobility market


It is not recommended to exclusively support a particular segment of the electric mobility market. While electric vehicles may represent a significant portion of this market, it is important to acknowledge that electric bicycles and e-scooters (electric micro-mobility) are experiencing faster growth in terms of sales.

Therefore, it is crucial to establish the necessary infrastructure to support the charging of these alternative modes of transportation. It should be noted that electric vehicle supply equipment is designed specifically for charging electric vehicles, which poses a challenge for owners of electric bicycles who lack access to charging facilities on their property.



5- Do Not Overlook the Importance of Tailored Surveys in Electric Vehicle Infrastructure Planning


It has been observed that the subsidization of electric vehicle charging infrastructure is frequently determined by surveying the general public regarding their preferred type of charger. This approach, however, may not yield the most informative or beneficial results. For instance, when presented with a choice between a house or a condo for potential government subsidization, the majority of individuals would invariably opt for a house.

A more insightful and practical surveying method could involve posing the question: "What is the extent of your daily travel?" The provided answer options could span various range categories, such as:
  • less than 30 miles (typical for those working from home or running local errands)
  • 30 to 60 miles (the national average)
  • 60 to 120 miles (indicative of high usage)
  • more than 120 miles (common for commercial or rideshare usage)

Given that electric vehicles need only recharge the energy expended during the day, this question would yield more pertinent data to determine the most suitable type of charger for the individuals surveyed. Thus, the distribution of subsidies could be better aligned with actual usage patterns, enhancing both the efficiency and effectiveness of the electric vehicle charging infrastructure.


6- Do Not Grant Exclusive Control: Safeguarding Property Rights to Encourage Competition and Innovation in the Electric Vehicle Infrastructure Sector


Electric vehicle infrastructure in a property often includes:
  • Electrical panels
  • Conduits
  • Junction Boxes
  • Wiring

The ownership and control of these components should be retained by the property on which they are installed. Outsourcing the control of the infrastructure to a third-party company risks granting them the power to monopolize and manipulate pricing structures. This potential scenario could lead to a marked increase in charging costs, thereby discouraging residents from investing in electric vehicles.

Drawing a parallel to the telecommunications sector, it is important to note that infrastructure related to networking should not be owned exclusively by one company. Should residents wish to alter their internet provider, they should have the freedom to do so without necessitating the installation of new infrastructure.

Fundamental economic principles assert that healthy competition is instrumental in regulating pricing structures and stimulating innovation. This concept should be extended to the sphere of EV charging infrastructure as well. Any EV charging service provider should have the capability to assume control of an existing infrastructure in a property, or at least a portion of it, to offer superior charging services to residents. Without such a provision, the organization that owns the infrastructure might lack the motivation to innovate or maintain reasonable installation and maintenance costs.

In many instances, EV charging companies or electricians enforce long-term contracts, often with the caveat that any interference with the underlying infrastructure could nullify the warranty on their products. It is imperative that no governmental policy should endorse or facilitate the creation of industrial monopolies.

Maintaining a competitive environment is paramount for encouraging innovation, controlling costs, and promoting the widespread adoption of electric vehicles.



Optimal Strategy for an Incentive Program


Two options are available for an incentive program aimed at encouraging the adoption of electric vehicles (EVs) by property owners and residents.

Option 1: Provide a flat incentive to the property owners for making each parking space EV ready, regardless of the speed of the charger


This would entail offering up to 100% of the cost, with a maximum of $2,000 per parking space as an incentive. The property owners and residents would be required to cover the remaining cost.

You also have the option to set a minimum for the amount of power the EV ready spaces need to provide, data shows 1.6kW is more than enough to satisfy the daily needs of 94% of drivers. Learn more:  The surprising data behind Level 1 charging 

This ensure the property will choose the most cost effective option for it's residents. The property will always has the option to choose a higher power charging infrastructure if they have the budget and power available at their property. Learn more:  Best EV Charging Strategy for multi-unit residential properties 


Option 2: Provide a flat incentive to the property owners to upgrade their electrical infrastructure to support EV charging


Some properties may need to upgrade their electrical infrastructure to support EV charging, the incentive program can provide flat funding for this specific purpose.

Under this option, the program would offer up to 100% of the cost, with a maximum of $5,000 per property to upgrade the electrical infrastructure to supply EV charging to every resident. The property owners and residents would be responsible for any additional costs beyond the $5,000 limit.

These options are designed to ensure that properties, regardless of their size or budget, have the opportunity to participate in the incentive program and make their parking spaces EV-ready. The first option offers flexibility and cost-effectiveness to the property owners, who can choose the most appropriate charging infrastructure for their residents. Meanwhile, the second option offers financial support for those who need to upgrade their electrical infrastructure to support EV charging.


Conclusion


To create effective government funding policies for multi-unit residential EV charging infrastructure, it is crucial to consider charger convenience and usage costs.
By incentivizing dedicated chargers for each resident, including Level 1 charging as an options, and balancing initial and ongoing costs, these policies can promote sustainable and equitable access to EV charging solutions in multi-unit properties.