FT 5-3: Fremont Charging Station Act of 2017

[Cashew]

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Sponsor: DFL

[Cashew]

Discussion may now commence.

[DFL]

If our region wants to continue to be a leader in Atlasia and the world in promoting clean and renewable energy, we need to ensure that one of the largest polluters -- cars powered by fossil fuels -- are taken off the streets.

The easiest way to do this, without becoming too authoritarian, is to make electric cars more viable to use across our region. Currently, one of the largest obstacles to this is the fact that we don't have enough reliable charging stations for our motorists to be able to get from one side of Fremont to the other without losing power. That's why I'm proposing an act to help us increase our clean energy partnerships, build more charging stations, and make them free of charge so that it only becomes more attractive for consumers to switch to clean cars.

If necessary, I can also include amendments to this that run ad campaigns encouraging people to make the switch.

[Cashew]

Any objections?

[Kamala]

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.

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 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.

[DFL]

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.

[DFL]

Amendments:

Section 2-1 shall now read:

1. The government of the Commonwealth of Fremont shall partner with select private companies and public utilities to build charging stations in locations where infrastructure is necessary.
          a. If a partner is found to be violating any Fremont laws or
          codes, cooperation shall cease and necessary consequences
          shall be levied.
          b. If a partnership is determined to be in a conflict of interest
          with the government of Fremont, it shall be ceased
          immediately after the ruling is made.

Section 2-2 shall now read:

2. All cities with a population greater than 100,000 in Fremont shall are strongly encouraged to establish an ordinance to expedite the process of creating charging stations in their jurisdictions.

[DFL]

Any thoughts/concerns/feelings on the amendment?

I hate to pester, but this chamber is just woefully quiet.

[DFL]

Any objections?

[YE]

Section 2-2 seems unnecessary, given the phrase "when necessary" in Section 2-1 to me.

[DFL]

Section 2-2 seems unnecessary, given the phrase "when necessary" in Section 2-1 to me.

I get what you mean, but 2-2 is unique from 2-1 in the sense that it urges cities to independently build more charging stations even without our intervening. I feel that ultimately it’s worth keeping in.

[DFL]

The 48-hour voting period has opened.

[YE]

Aye.

[DFL]

Aye.

[KoopaDaQuick 🇵🇸]

Aye.

[Mike Thick]

AYE

[Cashew]

Aye.

[Dr. MB]

Aye

[DFL]

On a vote of 6-0-2 abstaining, item 5-3 does PASS.