SDcampowneroperator wrote:
O P here.
Met with our SD district 30 reps today in a mid legislative session crackerbarrel . Hb 1153 passed by supermajority levying a $50/ annum surcharge on SD our registered 162 personal EVs inthe state.
Its a crack in the wall to raise fees equivalent to road use taxes in our user pay for road use service.
It was accepted that the % of EVs registered in state will grow beyond ICE powered vehicles. exponentially.
As I tendered in my opening this thead, Evs will first most heavily impact the daily use, touring people, most for now from out of state to visit .
Recharging those growing #s vehicles in public and private parks is the issue in our static in ground power supply designed per NEC to meet rv needs.
I echo wapiticountrys posts, remote charging stations will not bode well, that pianotunas remotely metering at site with pay for use.
SD is one of many states that only allow a pass on charge for utility, SD cannot upcharge our kw\hr rate, thus the infrastructure to provide facility can only be recovered by a daily increased site fee. Our state parks are most heavily impacted, seeing KWhrs/ site/ night rise 10-20% YoY.
to those who do not use that facility, it is wrong to raise site fees to subsidise those who use an extraordinary amount of utility. Pay to Play Plan.
Just how it can work and be satisfactory is yet to work out.
the argument about pools, CATV playgrounds and such is moot. They amount to pennies/ day/guest, easily justified in a business plan.
I still think consulting with a company like Chargepoint might be helpful. They have helped everybody from golf courses to shopping malls sort out the issues. And they look after all the billing.
Jmho.
