Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Business Models topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Work group reviews EV charging business models as members weigh reliability metrics, data reporting and who should be regulated
Summary
An invited white paper and industry comments prompted discussion about why public chargers fail to stay reliably available; the group heard theories (low utilization, unclear repair responsibility, data gaps), industry maintenance plans and debated whether the framework should cover public‑use, multifamily and private chargers and what grace period and reporting channels to require.
Alex Anton presented a brief white paper on the economics and technology behind station reliability and proposed that the group use that analysis to guide rule design. He summarized common business models (site‑host, owner‑operator, charging as a service, utility‑owned and hybrids) and argued that low utilization and misaligned incentives can slow repairs.
"[A] San Francisco study where people went around the Bay Area... found that only 72.5% of charges actually function," Alex said, illustrating a disparity between reported uptime and successful charge attempts.
Industry responses were immediate. Caitlin of EVgo described the owner‑operator model and a new maintenance program, saying EVgo relies on customer utilization to recover station costs and has launched a network‑wide maintenance initiative. Mal Skarm of ChargePoint said many site hosts value customer trust and that bad charging experiences can harm the host's business, which creates another incentive to maintain uptime.
Scope and reporting: Members debated whom to include in a regulation. MDOT suggested public‑use, non‑utility stations; MDA stressed that devices used in commercial transactions fall under Handbook 44; others recommended exemptions for single‑family residential chargers while including multifamily common chargers. Questions about data emphasized existing federal feeds: the Alternative Fuels Data Center (AFDC) database and forthcoming federal NEVI analytics tools. MDOT and others asked how state registration would interoperate with AFDC and cautioned that federal data sometimes mislabels availability or accessibility (e.g., stations behind gates).
Timing and compliance: The chair said a one‑year grace period for existing stations was under consideration; Scott recommended a compliance plan before penalties. Member agencies were asked to provide operational cost estimates and to circulate slide decks and a white paper.
Ending: No formal actions were taken. The group set the next meeting for Aug. 5 and asked members to submit written feedback on the draft framework and data requirements.
