The rapid growth of battery-electric vehicles in the U.S. has brought with it a rather fundamental political question — one far beyond the ability of any automaker or group of automakers to answer: Should consumers have an unfettered right to charge at home or near their home — no matter where they live?
How policymakers ultimately decide that question will have lasting effects on EV penetration and infrastructure spending, and could set off waves of unintended consequences across broad swaths of the economy.
A study on EV adoption released last month by J.D. Power found access to charging is impeding interest in vehicles with electric powertrains, especially among renters and those who live in multiunit dwellings such as apartments and condominiums. Without a dedicated place to charge at home, many are putting off or outright rejecting EVs.
Nine states have enacted so-called right-to-charge laws that require landlords to allow renters of single-family homes and those living in multiunit dwellings to install chargers, usually at significant cost to the renters. In California, one of these states, tenants must obtain and pay for liability insurance to cover damage or injury caused by an EV charger, while landlords can charge fees for a dedicated space next to a charging station if a tenant doesn't have a reserved parking spot.
There are societal benefits to be gained from the broader adoption of EVs. Yet as the J.D. Power study makes clear, charging issues remain the Achilles' heel — from the speed of charging, to availability of charging, to questions of temporary strain on the grid from charging during the day, when other demands on electricity are highest.
