I'm concerned with the legality of S2.2, as I do not believe the regional government has the power to force municipalities to pass laws.
I'll change the wording to "strongly encourage".
Additionally, I'm also concerned with payment re: charging station use. If we are partnering with private companies, how would ownership of the charging station function? If it is owned in part by a private companies, and charging is free, would the government pay the company per use, or not at all? Because if the latter is true, I don't see many companies jumping at the opportunity to work with us.
Or, would we only partner with companies for the construction of the charging stations, and then publicly own the charging stations? I'd like this to be clarified.
I can go ahead and write-out the private companies aspect and instead just change the bill to be a funding mechanism for municipalities.
I think we also shouldn't make charging completely free; it would mean a lot of inner-city residents would not make much use of it, and it could discourage municipalities from pursuing public transit options – with the gasoline replacement being free, they would hesistate to install public transit such as subways, light rail, and busses, due to the cost displacement being minimal for users. I think a tax write-off for charging would be a better alternative, allowing those who use their cars significantly to save money.
I'm not entirely sure how this hurts inner-city residents if we are giving them a free way to charge their car as opposed to gas.
On your point about public transit, I understand your concern, but as far as pollution goes promoting environmentally-friendly cars over heavy-polluting buses, etc, should be a win. I'd be all for working on bills to help subsidize and build public transit, but I don't think we should kill the free charging mechanism when it helps the environment and residents in urban as well as rural areas.