[redpoint5]

Originally Posted by freebeard

Electricity to charge the car is not separable from electricity run the lights and refrigerator.

I'm assuming your meaning to be that paying someone to not do something that consumes electricity is untenable, especially since the utility cannot verify if that specific thing not done, was in fact not done?

That said, some utilities offer dedicated meters for EV charging. I don't see a point in those considering the relative ease in having smart chargers that can share data and even control with utilities.

Originally Posted by redneck

.
Rates are a climate strategy...???

Rates should be adjusted in real time to reflect the actual cost to provide electricity, and those adjustments should be readily accessible and digestible to the average consumer. There's no point in having varying rates if the consumer isn't aware and isn't able to translate the rates into practical knowledge.

There was an announcement saying to not charge devices during peak utilization, as if that makes any difference at all. The grid doesn't care about the 5 watts a phone is consuming. It cares about heating/air conditioning, EV charging, water heating, and maybe laundry and dishwashing appliances.

It could be a so-called climate strategy if utilities incentivized consumers to use less electricity during peak events and to utilize excess renewable electricity when it's available. Perhaps EVs could be commanded to charge when excess wind power generation is available. Rather than curtailment, that excess might be put to use.

That said, I doubt this will make a meaningful difference to "climate strategy". If 100% of US vehicles were EVs, we wouldn't be able to measure the "good" done to the "global climate". It's still worth pursuing efficiency though, primarily to make the best use of resources. Nobody should be expecting the oceans to recede though.

Originally Posted by falkin42

Charge it whenever you want but if you do it during certain times you get a bonus. What's wrong with that?

Nothing wrong with reflecting the true cost to deliver a vital utility.

No one is forcing anyone to buy an ev, but if you do you get a bonus. What's wrong with that?

What is wrong with distorting the true cost of a non-vital consumer good at taxpayer expense?

To provide a reasonable response to the rhetorical question, it would be necessary to establish that a credible study was conducted to evaluate the pros and cons of such a massive subsidy. It would need to show what environmental benefit would arise by achieving 2% of EV sales penetration by forking over the $7,500-$10,000 per EV sold, with the vast majority of those proceeds funneling into auto manufacturers pockets. The manufacturers adhere to the law of supply and demand, which is price. When more demand is created through artificially discounting the cost (subsidy), they raise the price. This is evident by the fact that that the Chevy Bolt can be purchased for less now without subsidy than before factoring in $10k in subsidy. In other words, when the government stopped giving taxpayer money to wealthy people to purchase the vehicles, GM drastically reduced the price.