The urgent global effort to defeat climate change cannot succeed without practical alternatives to gasoline, but today’s electric vehicles have rigid charging limitations that make it challenging to distribute electric fuel in an equitable way. Level 2 home chargers provide the most convenient, least expensive way to charge an EV, but many motorists have living situations that preclude regular access to a home charger. If they were to purchase an EV, they would be forced to rely on public chargers for all of their electric fuel. Inequitable access to home charging is a fundamental barrier to universal EV adoption that cannot be fully remedied by increasing the availability of public chargers.
If you have no way to reap the benefits of a home charger, fueling an EV imposes significant burdens that homeowners are able to avoid. Roughly 80% of EV charging is currently carried out at home. A standard240-volt, Level 2 home charger delivers fuel to the EV at a slow, steady pace while the EV is sitting idle, and is fast enough to replenish a depleted battery between dusk and dawn. For normal day-to-day driving, the home charger provides plenty of fuel and there is rarely a need to visit a public charging station. There are many complex variables that impact charging speed, but public Level 2 chargers are no faster than home chargers, delivering 30 miles of driving range in about an hour. The electricity dispensed by a home charger is typically less expensive than the electricity purchased from a Level 2 public charger. Most EV owners with no access to home charging have difficulty acquiring an adequate fuel supply from poky, Level 2 public chargers and are forced to refuel at Level 3 fast chargers, which are even more expensive. Level 3 chargers are the fastest fueling option, but they are still considerably slower than fueling with gasoline.
The inequities associated with home charging access are aggravated by other closely related factors. Public charging infrastructure has become heavily concentrated in affluent communities where EVs are more common, further restricting the availability of electric fuel to low-income motorists. The selection of EV models available for purchase has also been shaped by the wealth of early adopters. Luxury EVs are heavily represented, while smaller, more affordable EVs are the exception. To make matters worse, the convenient, inexpensive fuel delivered by home chargers has reduced the need to optimize fuel economy, and a fleet of powerful EVs has emerged that is far less efficient than it could be. Low-income motorists need affordable EVs with outstanding fuel economy, but most EVs are being designed to match the priorities of the upper class.
The intractable nature of the equity dilemma is underappreciated. Government policies have been enacted that steer more charging infrastructure into low-income communities, but EVs will continue to be impractical for anybody who cannot refuel at home. Tax credits designed to offset the high cost of EVs have also been adjusted to make the incentives more accessible to low-income motorists, but these egalitarian efforts could easily be thwarted for the same reason. Efficient hybrids deliver significant emission reductions and match the needs of low-income motorists, but government resources are mostly being used to accelerate EV adoption, not hybrid adoption. Vociferous EV proponents insist that, with enough charging infrastructure, fully electric vehicles can work for everybody. Most of them are homeowners.
