DOE Bet on EV Charging Technology Puts Taxpayers in Reverse

Volt recharging photo

On Friday NLPC reported that the Department of Energy may have made a bad bet on Ecotality, the car-charging company that is heavily dependent on $115 million in government grants to deploy stations for electric vehicles through its EV Project. It turns out that DOE may not only be gambling taxpayer funds on a shaky company, but may also have dumped a bunch of money into a technology with a questionable future.

Last week seven automotive companies – General Motors, Ford, BMW, Audi, Daimler, Porsche, and Volkswagen – announced they would adopt a single standard , established by the Society of Automotive Engineers, for fast charging the electric vehicles (a speedy re-boost is what every EV owner wants, right?) they produce in the future. Sound good?

Unfortunately this new zip-charging standard is not compatible with the one used for the current No. 1 electric vehicle on the U.S. market – Nissan’s Leaf – which is also the one used by fellow Japanese company Mitsubishi, which will soon bring its own EV to the U.S. The Chevy Volt, which uses a gas engine to additionally charge once its battery has been drained, has a smaller battery and is not conducive to a “fast” charge. So the technology would be for future, purely electric vehicles produced by the seven automakers.

That presents a problem, as the DOE has already poured millions of dollars of subsidies into the fast-charging units that work with the Japanese vehicles, which were conceived by the Tokyo Electric Power Company. As EV expert John Gartner of Pike Research explained, “Charging stations with more than one port could be upgraded to offer both cable types once the SAE standard is released, but who’s going to pay for the retrofits? Having two fast charging standards could slow the spread of fast charging.”

It remains to be seen whether DOE has wagered on the equivalent of VHS or Betamax, but in today’s world where government is funding everything “renewable,” it doesn’t matter. Almost certainly the answer to Gartner’s question is that taxpayers will cover the retrofits, just like they have mostly paid for the chargers to date , as well as the cost of development of the Volt, the retrofit of a Tennessee auto plant to build the Leaf , etc., etc.

Ecotality, which is deploying the Leaf-friendly fast chargers, doesn’t care whether the Japanese technology or the new SAE standard is ultimately adopted.

“The (EV) Project will be getting data back,” said Don Karner, president of Ecotality North America, to the New York Times . “So within the EV Project we are indifferent to what standard is being used and much more attuned to how fast-charging affects how people use their vehicles, where are the best places to put fast charging, how can we most effectively deploy a fast-charge infrastructure.”

Meanwhile taxpayers fund a project with millions of dollars that has suffered from glitches like locked display screens, dropped connectivity, and outright system crashes. These are chargers and systems that are being installed as a significant “investment” in EV infrastructure, with 14,000 stations to be set up in 18 cities across six states and the District of Columbia. Yet Ecotality doesn’t care if the blueprint ultimately has to be torn up and restarted – they will probably benefit financially from it anyway with future DOE grants.

Worse, Gartner of Pike Research believes the EV charging market is “about to get ugly.” He reports that because of increased competition, new technologies being introduced that support Toyota’s coming Prius Plug-in, and providers who bundle service contracts with equipment, that “the prices of chargers are about to go down rapidly – in some cases to zero.” Gartner also notes the slow rollout of electric vehicles informs his prediction, although he mistakenly chalks up that problem to “supply constraints” rather than weak demand, which NLPC’s Mark Modicahas debunked over and over again.

Buttressing Modica’s evidence of EV apathy is a global survey by Deloitte of 13,000 consumers from 17 countries. As reported by online technology Web site ZDNet, “no more than 4 percent of consumers are satisfied with what electric vehicle manufacturers have made available.” Among the expectations respondents said they would want in order to consider the purchase of an EV:

A range of at least 300 miles (current EVs have a maximum range of approximately 100 miles under ideal conditions, that is, without use of air conditioning, heaters, and temperate outside climate.

No more than a 30-minute recharging time.

Similar pricing to gas-powered vehicles.

Indeed, significant percentages of the purchasers of EVs have beenutilities,governments, and companies involved in the rollout like General Electric. Taxpayers also subsidize those transactions, and as if that wasn’t enough, the effect of a network of chargers and EVs on the electrical grid has a significant impact on the overall populace as well. The Tennessee Valley Authority, thelargest public power company in the country, explains:

It is important to note that costs associated with charging infrastructure are in direct correlation to hardware standards….
Utilities are constantly planning and implementing upgrades to their individual systems. Knowing what potential opportunities and challenges the electric vehicle market offers is critically important. Estimating who will purchase these vehicles as they become commercially available, in order to plan system upgrades, is, at the present, extremely difficult.
Learning about current circuit hardware is an effective way to get ready for future upgrades. Unfortunately, many power distributors are at a disadvantage because without detailed paper records, they do not know which assets are where and how long they have been in place….
Careful planning of the charging networks will help utilities encourage market development of electric transportation and lower the risk of unpredicted consequences.

And how do you think the costs associated with upgrades to the distribution network will be recovered? It will be another hidden tax on your electric bill.

Meanwhile DOE has rewarded Ecotality’s substandard track record (only 3,300 chargers installed so far in a project that required 14,000 deployed by 2012, plus the aforementioned technological problems) with another $26.4 million contract to test “advanced vehicles.” Nearly everything that is to be studied is related to EVs, so whether that is truly “advanced” is in the eyes of the beholders. As ZDNet reported:

Right now, there is a big disconnect between electric vehicle consumer expectations and the realities of the technology. Which brings us back full circle to that charging technology cooperation announcement from earlier this week. The automakers are smart to get together on research and development whenever they can, as it relates to alternative transportation technologies. Or electric vehicle adoption will be permanently stuck in neutral.

More realistically, as seen in how government has funded ever-changing technologies, “reverse” is the best result that taxpayers can ever hope for.

Paul Chesser is an associate fellow for the National Legal and Policy Center and is executive director of American Tradition Institute .

By this President's own admisssion, he is "betting" on these ill-run companies with the hard-earned dollars coercively taken from individuals in America who, if allowed to keep their earnings, could make decisions as good, or better than his have proven to be. What he did not "take" in taxes and regulatory fees, or "print" (another form of taxation), he borrowed on the behalf of future generations from a nation which may turn out to be the greatest threat to America's economic security

The actions taken by this Administration in the name of "progress" are condemning future generations to slavery to oppressive government. Whether by an individual "master" or a collection of bureaucrats and politicians, indentured servitude to provide for the wants, desires, and "bets" of political elitists and bureacrats, slavery is slavery, and it violates the very principles underlying America's Declaration of Independence and Constitution.

We might consult a letter from Thomas Jefferson to Roger Weightman which is reproduced here from the Library of Congress collection

Thomas Jefferson to Roger Weightman

Monticello June 24. 26

Respected Sir

The kind invitation I receive from you on the part of the citizens of the city of Washington, to be present with them at their celebration of the 50th. anniversary of American independance; as one of the surviving signers of an instrument pregnant with our own, and the fate of the world, is most flattering to myself, and heightened by the honorable accompaniment proposed for the comfort of such a journey. it adds sensibly to the sufferings of sickness, to be deprived by it of a personal participation in the rejoicings of that day. but acquiescence is a duty, under circumstances not placed among those we are permitted to controul. I should, indeed, with peculiar delight, have met and exchanged there congratulations personally with the small band, the remnant of that host of worthies, who joined with us on that day, in the bold and doubtful election we were to make for our country, between submission or the sword; and to have enjoyed with them the consolatory fact, that our fellow citizens, after half a century of experience and prosperity, continue to approve the choice we made. may it be to the world, what I believe it will be, (to some parts sooner, to others later, but finally to all,) the Signal of arousing men to burst the chains, under which monkish ignorance and superstition had persuaded them to bind themselves, and to assume the blessings & security of self-government. that form which we have substituted, restores the free right to the unbounded exercise of reason and freedom of opinion. all eyes are opened, or opening, to the rights of man. the general spread of the light of science has already laid open to every view. the palpable truth, that the mass of mankind has not been born with saddles on their backs, nor a favored few booted and spurred, ready to ride them legitimately, by the grace of god. these are grounds of hope for others. for ourselves, let the annual return of this day forever refresh our recollections of these rights, and an undiminished devotion to them.

I will ask permission here to express the pleasure with which I should have met my ancient neighbors of the City of Washington and of it's vicinities, with whom I passed so many years of a pleasing social intercourse; an intercourse which so much relieved the anxieties of the public cares, and left impressions so deeply engraved in my affections, as never to be forgotten. with my regret that ill health forbids me the gratification of an acceptance, be pleased to receive for yourself, and those for whom you write, the assurance of my highest respect and friendly attachments.

Th. Jefferson

The automobile did have two indirect great “subsidies”, but they came after its initial success.

The first was the government sponsored “U.S.” highway network (like the old “U.S. Route 66” heading out west), and later the Interstate Highway system.

Economists may someday look at the period between the launch of the two systems and ask whether or not the simple use of the government’s eminent domain powers may have alone been sufficient for helping to foster a boom in a private Interstate toll road system, in which some of the investors and owners may have been in transportation businesses already and could chose to move capital from old to new means of profit in transportation.

Historians I think will already conclude that the Interstate Highway system - a government and government funded project - helped put many railroads into insolvency. Most all their passenger routes eventually landing in government hands.

With the government funding a bunch of more efficient motor vehicle highway routes, trucking outfits could much more easily compete with the railroads, particularly on their short and medium distance routes. Many railroad operations were at the time integrated operations involving both freight and passenger routes. The new highways also contributed to declines in passengers on passenger train routes. At the same time, the railroads, more so than truckers, were an extremely regulated industry and both regulation and unions limited the railroads abilities to quickly adapt, and restructure due to new conditions created by the government sponsored Interstate Highways.

Its a story that reminds us that any time the government is giving something with one hand, it is taking something away with another.

If I were a betting man on whether or not “high speed rail” could be a profitable venture on some routes in the U.S., I would say we will never know unless it is done by private enterprise without any government subsidy to support revenues or operations. So far, none of the planned high speed rail lines meet that standard, and none are expected to. Meanwhile, the same government plans vis-a-vis high speed passenger rail service are (due to route plans) making it more difficult and more costly for our profitable railroad companies that haul freight to inaugurate faster freight lines of their own. They are the ones that AMTRAK should be sold to.

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.