The federal government has spent billions on internet expansion and hasn’t connected a single new home. California has increased its high-speed rail budget from $33 billion to $135 billion and still hasn’t laid down any track fifteen years after the program began. It’s insanity.

Another huge federal program with local implications that has failed miserably is the program to install thousands of electric vehicle chargers across the nation. $7.5 billion was appropriated toward this goal in 2021 as part of the bloated stimulus package, and by the end of 2023, zero chargers had been installed.

2024 has witnessed the installation of a few new chargers. As of this summer, the program is up to eight. All of this for something the private sector could provide. But if you leave it to the private sector, they might not install chargers exactly how the federal government wants them to, and that’s (apparently) the problem. The federal rules are so unnecessarily yet intentionally complex that they are the cause of the delays. As Reason magazine writes:

Why so little progress? Alexander Laska of the center-left Third Way think tank told Autoweek’s Jim Motavalli that the federal cash “comes with dozens of rules and requirements around everything from reliability to interoperability, to where stations can be located, to what certifications the workers installing the chargers need to have.”

Who cares what certifications the workers have as long as the chargers work? And who cares where they are located as long as they are located somewhere a car can get to? The federal government cares, of course, because the complexity of the rules is exactly what gives bureaucrats their power and allows officials to reward supporters.

EV charging mandates, subsidies, and regulations, are all unnecessary. Where there is a demand for chargers, the private sector will supply them. This is no more complex than the gas stations that have been filling up cars for over a hundred years. (Did you know that the first gas station in America was in St. Louis? I didn’t.)

$7.5 billion for eight EV chargers in three years. So typical.

The post Charging Nothing and Liking It appeared first on Show-Me Institute.

Certain municipalities, such as the City of St. Louis, have mandated that if certain residential and commercial businesses engage in new constructions or major renovations, they must install, maintain, and operate EV charging stations on their own dime.

HB 2062 would provide statewide exemptions for churches and nonprofits from EV charging station mandates. But what about everyone else?

As I have written before, these types of mandates are an unnecessary government intrusion into the free market. All businesses should be protected from EV mandates—not just churches and nonprofits.

At the local level, the City of St. Louis has also included some exemptions from its mandate. Businesses that the city council has determined a visitor wouldn’t typically stay long enough at to warrant charging their vehicle are exempt from the mandate. Currently public-level charging is exceptionally slow (which is part of the reason why installing them is wasteful), but what happens when charging improves and people use charging stations during shorter stops? Will many of these businesses no longer be exempt?

A stronger version of a state law with more than just narrow exemptions would render these concerns at the municipal level moot. While it’s nice to see protections from these mandates offered to some, shouldn’t those protections be extended to all businesses in our state?

The post Protections from EV Charging Station Mandates—for Some appeared first on Show-Me Institute.

Last week, I submitted testimony on House Bill (HB) 1511, which would protect St. Louis–area business owners from being forced to install, operate, and maintain electric vehicle (EV) charging stations on their own dime. The legislation would not prevent mandates for the installation of EV chargers. However, it would require St. Louis–area governments to pay for their mandates. You can read the full testimony here.

HB 1511 was filed because some St. Louis municipalities (the City of St. Louis and Brentwood, among others) are forcing business owners to install and operate EV chargers (on their own dime) following new construction or significant renovation. There are a few reasons why such mandates are a bad idea.

Remember when people thought MySpace was the future? It is possible (although I think not likely) that EVs could suffer a similar fate.

Fully electric vehicles are only 1% of the cars on the road.

Governments are assuming that the EVs of the present are also the vehicles of the future. A new type of electric vehicle could emerge (like when Facebook surpassed MySpace) and make premature government investment unnecessary. A whole new technology like hydrogen-fuel cells could emerge as the best way to power our transit in the future.

Additionally, EV chargers that are currently on the market are in their early stages. The typical public charger used in cities (also known as a Level 2 charger) takes 4–10 hours to charge an EV from empty to 80%. As charging technology improves, faster options will hopefully become available. Will there need to be a mandate for new construction each time the technology improves?

As EVs make up a bigger share of cars on the road, and as developers hopefully improve charging speeds, establishments such as apartments, hotels, and restaurants will likely seek to lure this growing consumer base with EV chargers. There is no need to force any business to build charging stations that cost $2,000–$5,000

As of right now, public chargers are rarely used. The market can grow at its own pace. I see gas stations everywhere, but I do not fill up all the time. I usually fill up when I am nearing empty and it is convenient for me. EV owners typically follow a similar pattern, as over 90% charge their car at home daily (55%) or weekly (38%).

According to a 2023 survey:

• Only 4% of EV owners report using a Level 2 public charger daily.
• Approximately 14% of EV owners report using one weekly.
• Approximately 16% use one monthly.
• Approximately 46% say they “rarely” use a public charger.
• Approximately 21% say they have never used one.

It’s possible that plug-in electric chargers will never be popular.

The current legislation is restricted only to the City of St. Louis and St. Louis County. But why is it so limited? Unfunded mandates for EV chargers are bad policy wherever they are in the state.

The post Who Will Be Getting Charged for New EV Chargers in STL? appeared first on Show-Me Institute.

The post House Bill 1511: Prohibiting Unfunded Mandates for Electric Vehicle Chargers appeared first on Show-Me Institute.

Listen on Apple Podcasts 

Listen on Stitcher 

Listen on SoundCloud

Produced by Show-Me Opportunity

The post Medicaid, Electric Cars, and Short-Term Rentals appeared first on Show-Me Institute.

In response, I weighed in on the details of this policy. In particular, I noted the lack of trust in free-market innovation, even though the EV industry was kickstarted and fueled by market forces and ingenuity.

The Missouri legislature appears to be fearful of NEVI opening a Pandora’s Box of EV expansion mandates and is considering ways to curtail it in the upcoming session. House Bill (HB) 184  was recently pre-filed and would create protections for small-business owners subject to onerous local government mandates like the NEVI Deployment Plan. Under this bill, any political subdivision that adopts a rule requiring the installation of charging stations at any non-fueling business would be required to pay all costs associated with the installation, maintenance, and operation.

While I appreciate this pre-filed bill defending the rights of some small business owners, why are fueling-businesses excluded from its protection? If a fueling business does not have charging stations, that probably signals it does not have market demand for that service. Only 1% of cars on the road are electric, and in many rural counties you could probably count the number of EV’s in the community on one hand. When it makes economic sense for fueling businesses to install charging stations, they will, and they shouldn’t be forced to do so prematurely.

Unfortunately, a law protecting against overreaching EV mandates only treats a symptom of the disease—the mandates shouldn’t be happening in the first place. The EV market has been rapidly innovating through fierce competition and expanding due to increased consumer interest. As it grows, restaurants, hotels, fueling-stations, landlords, and other businesses will face economic decisions about whether to add charging stations to their premises to attract consumers. A barbershop with limited parking may not want to build an EV station, but for a landlord, an EV station could be beneficial for luring tenants. Why is the government getting involved when market forces are driving progress on their own? By the time government-mandated projects like NEVI are actually completed, who’s to say that those charging stations will even be up to date?

These inefficient mandates are unlikely even to significantly increase the convenience and allure of EVs. In a study published by Plug-in America, only 9% of all EV owners said charging stations being too far apart was a major difficulty, and 7% said that there were not enough charging stations at each location. In addition, 60% of EV owners charge their vehicle at home daily. What problem is the government trying to solve if current EV owners are comfortable with the availability of chargers and most of them charge their cars at home?

Hopefully, protections can be put in place for business owners when inefficient EV expansion projects are implemented, but I hope HB 184 will not even need to be invoked.

The post Curbing Forced EV Expansion appeared first on Show-Me Institute.

Is this massive undertaking needed? Can the free market not guide the expansion of EVs itself?

A mere 8% of Tesla owners and 18% of other EV owners said charging stations being too far away was a major difficulty, and an even lower 8% and 14% respectively said there were not enough charging ports at each charging station. Despite these statistics, the federal government is attempting to control the charging station market throughout the country instead of allowing the free market to operate. The government claims to be farsighted when protecting future generations on climate change policy, but their policies are routinely shortsighted. If we truly want to be more environmentally friendly, central planning is not the answer; instead, we ought to trust in the responsiveness of the free market to consumer desires.

Lucid Motors is an example of market innovation occurring naturally without central planning. Recently, Lucid gained traction in the stock market due to having the longest-lasting car battery in the market. In response, competitors started creating longer-lasting batteries in order to win over consumers who prioritize battery life.

With the free market spurring innovation for battery life in EVs, why would we need a massive expansion of charging stations? The already high levels of satisfaction with charging station availability will only increase as battery life further improves. As the demand for EVs continues to grow, electric chargers and EV infrastructure will likely grow proportionately. There’s simply no reason for the federal government to interfere in an industry where the free market is already spurring plenty of innovation.

The post Federal Overreach on EVs appeared first on Show-Me Institute.

Listen on Apple Podcasts 

Listen on Sticher 

Listen on SoundCloud

The post Charging Station Changes, Use Tax Votes, and Gas Tax Holidays appeared first on Show-Me Institute.

HB 1584 stipulates that any municipality requiring property owners to install EV charging stations pay for those installation costs. Some municipalities in Missouri created requirements for property owners to build EV charging stations on new construction and major renovations—this law would ensure that private property owners aren’t forced to bear the costs of government-mandated construction.

Retrofitting an existing parking space with EV charger equipment can cost thousands of dollars per space, so sorting out who pays for what is not unreasonable. Despite what some opponents claim, this bill doesn’t “block” EV market growth; it simply ensures that private property owners aren’t told where and when to spend more money.

Another objection to this bill is related to costs. It costs much less to outfit a parking space with EV charger equipment during construction than after. Some estimates say installation during construction rather than after could cut costs by 75 percent. And with thousands more EVs hitting the road each year, opponents of the bill claim it would be better to require building charging stations as cheaply as possible to accommodate EV market growth.

This gets it backward. It may indeed be cheaper to install chargers during original construction, which is something property owners can take into account if they wish to respond to a growing EV market. Accommodating an emerging class of customers is standard business practice and doesn’t require any mandates.

Lost in the discussion surrounding HB 1584 are several better policies state and local policymakers can pursue to improve the EV market. For charging stations, municipalities can streamline their zoning rules to allow EV chargers in all zoning districts, review EV charger installation permits in days rather than weeks, and make information about the permitting process much more transparent. To make it easier to purchase EVs, state lawmakers can allow Missourians to buy EVs directly from manufacturers rather than forcing them to go through a franchised dealership (which many new EV companies do not have).

HB 1584 is a step in the right direction, but it’s a narrow bill that only deals with protecting private actors from an onerous government mandate for EV charging station construction. I’m hopeful that future EV policy discussions can turn from talks of fines and mandates to free markets.

The post Major Confusion About Missouri’s EV Charging Station Bill appeared first on Show-Me Institute.

Saint Louis County, Saint Louis City, and Brentwood have decided to mandate that new construction and major renovations for several types of properties (residential and/or commercial, depending on the jurisdiction) must be accompanied by EV charging stations. None of these mandates consider the $5,000-per-charger cost businesses will face, and some of these regulations impose a substantial fine for being a day late and an EV charger short.

Some places—like apartments and office buildings where people park for hours at a time—are a good fit for EV chargers. But for other places, a charging station could actually be a liability. Think of places like diners or convenience stores, whose business models rely on getting people in and out quickly. The last thing the owner of a small diner needs is someone who comes in and occupies a table for an hour or longer, nursing a coffee while his car charges. That’s why decisions about where the chargers should be installed are best left to businesses rather than being determined by a one-size-fits-all government mandate.

If local officials want more EV charging stations, perhaps they should first clarify where they can be built rather than dictating where they must be built. Ironically, the municipal codes for the Saint Louis jurisdictions mandating chargers are mum about where chargers can be built outside of the areas where they are mandatory. This lack of clarity results in several weeks of permitting and site plan reviews, which often vary by jurisdiction. This is backwards. Dozens of municipalities nationwide have amended their codes to allow EV chargers to be built wherever property owners see fit and have fast-tracked the permitting process to finish, in some cases within a day. For example, Kane County, Illinois, and Bellevue, Washington, allow EV chargers to be built in all zoning districts. Several states, such as New Jersey, New York, and Oregon, have classified the installation of EV chargers as “minor work,” which helps speed up installation times and cut down on permitting costs. Chicago grants EV charger installation permits within a day and even provides a guide for the installation process. These are all simple ways to speed up the proliferation of EV chargers without twisting anyone’s arm.

Local officials are right to recognize that fueling an EV is different than fueling a traditional car. Due to the time it takes to charge, EV drivers won’t be waiting in lines at centralized “electron stations.” Rather, they’ll incorporate charging into their everyday life. As more Missourians buy EVs, it will make good business sense for more businesses and property owners to install EV charging stations, either to retain current customers or attract new ones. What EV driver wouldn’t the option of charging his or her car while at the grocery store or while typing away at work? Likewise, charging stations at apartment complex could become an appreciated—or even expected—amenity for prospective tenants.

Policymakers could also make it easier for Missourians to buy EVs. Currently some uncertainty exists about the validity in Missouri of the direct sales model that many EV companies use to sell their cars. Several years ago, Tesla was taken to court over the legality of selling its cars to customers without using a franchised dealership. While Tesla eventually won, it’s not clear if other EV companies would be granted the same freedom to sell. With many more EV companies using direct sales entering the market, ensuring they can operate in Missouri can bring EVs to thousands more residents.

EVs come with many benefits. They help improve local air quality and reduce the transportation sector’s overall environmental impact. For Saint Louis EV drivers, charging their EV at home can lead to hundreds of dollars of fuel cost savings each year compared to a gasoline-powered car. EVs have lower lifetime maintenance costs than gasoline-powered cars. EVs can succeed on their own merits; forcing the hand of property owners is the wrong way to speed up the EV adoption process.

The post EV Charging Stations Don’t Need Mandates to Succeed appeared first on Show-Me Institute.

The rule they’re considering would require electric vehicle charging stations be built with “new and substantial renovations and additions [at least 50 percent of the unit’s final floorspace] on single-family two family and townhomes and new multi-family residential developments.” The Brentwood Planning and Zoning Commission rejected a similar proposed mandate last month, but the Brentwood Board of Aldermen has revived the idea, with the Brentwood mayor indicating they may pass a bill on the matter.

Each EV charger costs an average of $5,000 to install, but it is still unclear who will pay for them. Ameren offers property owners subsidies for EV charging stations up to half the cost, but that still leaves thousands of dollars unaccounted for.

Additionally, their deliberations are vague concerning how many EV charging stations would be required per property. Would it be one per family in the case of townhomes? Would it be a percentage of total parking spaces available, as the new Saint Louis County ordinance requires? Would families that don’t use an EV be paying for their EV-driving neighbor’s charging station?

The board of aldermen’s proposal is not finalized, but the idea should be rejected. Let property owners install EV charging stations at their own pace based on the market demand for them. EV charging stations have grown rapidly across the country for the past several years without mandates like the one Brentwood officials are considering.

In the near future, equipping townhomes and apartments with EV charging stations may indeed make good business sense, either to keep existing tenants or attract new ones. But shouldn’t business and property owners be the ones deciding where to place EV charging stations rather than government officials?

The post Brentwood Considering Mandating EV Charging Stations in New Townhomes and Apartments appeared first on Show-Me Institute.

The new order affects new constructions, major remodels, parking lot reconstruction and overlay projects, and changes in use or occupancy classification. The changes apply to properties zoned for commercial, industrial, institutional, recreational, cultural, or municipal and park land uses. These properties must equip 2 percent of their parking spaces with electric vehicle (EV) chargers and have the electric wiring ready for another 10 percent of spaces on standby.

Not every property will be affected by this decision. But why should any?

The bill’s sponsor stated that its purpose is to incentivize more Missourians to drive EVs. However, EV ownership in Missouri, while small, is already increasing. Why not let property owners add EV charging spaces on their own and compete for EV drivers rather than force every renovating business to do so?

In addition to the bill’s warped incentives, it reeks of what economists call rent seeking, which is when companies use the political process to pad their bottom lines rather than providing a better service to customers. In this case, a prime beneficiary of the new requirements is local monopoly utility Ameren (which according to one councilmember lobbied heavily in the bill’s favor), which gets to make more money from captive customers simply by governmental order.

Another major problem is that installing EV charging stations is not cheap (they cost roughly $5,000 per unit). But the bill makes no mention of how property owners will pay for this. This is a government mandate that will squeeze business and property owners while only benefiting the existing electricity monopoly.

EV ownership is a personal preference. If more Missourians purchase EVs, businesses can make their own decisions about installing  EV charging stations and competing for customers’ business. Shouldn’t competitive markets decide these kinds of things instead of government bureaucrats?

The post St Louis County Council Mandates Businesses Install EV Charging Stations appeared first on Show-Me Institute.

What are promotional practices, and why does this matter?

Imagine that your power company wants to invest in an electric vehicle charging station in your area. They might have to bump up rates a bit in order to finance construction, but once the station was up and running it would be a win-win for electric vehicle owners and the utility.

But if you’re happy with your gas-powered car, it’s a different story. It’s not like you can just switch power companies. How is it fair for some of the money you pay for electricity every month to go towards a charging station that will make the power company more profitable, but won’t do anything at all for you?

Promotional practices are activities a utility undertakes to encourage some form of action by ratepayers. In the example above, the promotional practice is building the charging station, as the utility is trying to use it to encourage people to switch to electric vehicles. Or it could be something as straightforward as a gas company paying a cash bonus to anyone who replaces their electric stove with a gas stove.

Right now, the rules governing what expenses utilities can pass on to their customers are a mess. For instance, consider an educational program about energy efficiency that benefits all ratepayers. Such a campaign does not meet the current definition of “promotional practice.” Why not?

We have an opportunity to change the rules so that they make sense. If utility companies and their shareholders want to launch a promotion, they should be allowed to—as long as they, and not the ratepayers, foot the bill. Some of the red tape can even be removed along the way.

These and other matters relating to promotional practices are up for discussion at the Public Service Commission. The comments I submitted outline rule changes that would introduce more fairness and market discipline into the state’s utility monopoly system. You can read them here.

The post Show-Me Institute Submits Comments to Public Service Commission appeared first on Show-Me Institute.

As a revealing example of the magnitude of the changes that would be required to put the so-called “Green New Deal” into effect, let’s look at the little village of Kingdom City, Missouri, population 124. Endorsed by several presidential candidates, the Green New Deal would ban all use of fossil fuels over the next decade.

The big business in Kingdom City is servicing heavy trucks passing through Missouri going East and West on Interstate 70 and North and South on U.S. 54. Three filling stations in Kingdom City handle more than 450 18-wheelers on an average day.

What would it take for the Kingdom City filling stations to do the same work using electric power rather than diesel fuel?

That is an answerable question, using mathematics to convert from one form of energy usage to another. We know that a “Green” 18-wheeler must supply essentially the same average power to move a load of cargo over the same distance as a diesel-powered vehicle. Based on diesel fuel usage and engine efficiency, we estimate the required average power at 160 kW (a little over 200 horsepower).

To recharge a single truck after eight hours on the road in 20 minutes would require a charging station capacity of 3.88 megawatts. For three truck stops, each with 10 electric “pumps,” you must multiply this number by 30 to get the needed capacity. That comes to 116 megawatts, which is the equivalent of 58 2-megwatt windmills costing $3 to $4 million each.

In other words, to use electricity to refuel heavy trucks passing through Kingdom City would require a starting investment on the order of $200 million in new wind-generated electric capacity. This calculation does not include further substantial change-over costs, including the installation of additional transmission lines and the construction of recharging stations. For simplicity sake, we have also ignored the significant reduction in fuel economy caused by the approximately 10 tons of extra weight of the Tesla-like batteries that a “Green” 18-wheeler would carry.

The Kingdom City example underscores the prohibitively high cost of trying to implement even a tiny part of the all-encompassing Green New Deal. Take the $200 million starting investment in this little village and multiply it by the thousands of other locations across the United States. You quickly arrive at a figure in the hundreds of billions of dollars.

But would there be any positive impact on the environment?

Now, you must consider that three-quarters of Missouri’s electrical generating capacity comes from burning coal and another 5 percent from natural gas. We also get another 10 percent from nuclear energy, but the Green New Dealers are not calling for more nuclear power. So where, over the next decade, could we find the additional generating capacity that would power electric cars and trucks?

It could only come from increased burning of fossil fuels.

The post What It Would Take to Bring Green Energy to Kingdom City, Missouri? appeared first on Show-Me Institute.

Last year, Ameren filed for approval to install six charging stations between St. Louis and Jefferson City along 1-70 in order to alleviate the “range anxiety” EV drivers suffer with the current number of stations available.  Instead of approving or denying the request, the Missouri Public Service Commission (PSC) postponed its decision on the matter because it was unsure of whether it even had jurisdiction to regulate the emerging technology.

Some background: utilities such as electricity are often delivered to consumers through monopolies because of how expensive competing delivery infrastructure would be—it is rarely feasible for a startup to lay new pipes or string new wires.  To keep current monopolies in check, regulatory bodies (like the PSC) monitor and approve the prices utilities can charge to cover expenses while still protecting consumers from exorbitant prices.

Many private citizens and businesses already own and operate charging stations, so approving Ameren’s expansion into the market is controversial.  Daniel Hall, the PSC’s chairman, said “. . . it’s unclear whether or not it should be a regulated industry or whether it should be an open, unregulated, competitive market. . . . Where there is a competitive market, I’m not sure that that is a role for the commission.”

Hall’s uncertainty about the PSC’s role makes sense.  If the PSC were to approve Ameren’s project, it’s possible that all of Ameren customers (whether they own an electric vehicle of not) would have to chip in to cover the cost of construction for the new stations. 

Communities around the nation are debating whether the public-utility model would stifle competition, or if it is a necessary kick-start to EV adoption. Kansas’ regulatory body recently denied Kansas City Power & Light’s request to charge ratepayers for a $5.6 million charging station initiative, arguing the proposal was anti-competitive and that it would be unfair to require all ratepayers to subsidize a handful of EV drivers.   Meanwhile, Oregon has ruled (see p. 8) that utilities may own charging stations and cover costs through all ratepayers if they prove an area is in need and would not otherwise receive investment.

Ameren is proposing to construct stations in an area that is currently underserved, but electric cars are relatively new, and technological improvements could soon make them more prevalent than they are today. Missouri’s PSC has been confronted with a difficult decision, and they deserve credit for not blindly jumping into the unknown.  If a free-market model could improve customer choice and spur innovation, then we should be wary of expanding a monopoly where it may not be necessary.

The post Policymakers Wisely Look Before They Leap appeared first on Show-Me Institute.