guest column

Column: Should companies pay for EV chargers for corporate fleets?

By taking a thoughtful approach to employees’ individual situations, fleet managers can design a take-home EV program that fits their drivers’ needs and benefits the company’s bottom line in the long run. Photo via Getty Images

As electric vehicles continue to rise in popularity among corporate fleets, the question of how to best accommodate charging needs for fleet drivers, especially those taking their vehicles home, is becoming increasingly important.

Charging EV fleet vehicles at home can be an excellent strategy to save employees time and cut operational costs. However, many companies hesitate in their take-home EV implementation, mistakenly believing that high-cost level 2 home chargers are a necessity. This misconception can stall the transition to an efficient, cost-effective fleet charging solution.

By taking a thoughtful approach to employees’ individual situations, fleet managers can design a take-home EV program that fits their drivers’ needs and benefits the company’s bottom line in the long run. Here are some essential points to consider:

The viability of level 1 charging for low-mileage drivers

For many fleet drivers, especially those covering less than 10,000 miles annually, the standard level 1 charger that plugs into a 120v (standard) wall outlet and comes with their EV is perfectly adequate. This solution involves no additional hardware costs, mitigates issues when employees leave the company, and reduces corporate liability concerns. The primary advantage of relying on level 1 charging is its simplicity and cost-effectiveness, as it requires no extra investment in charging infrastructure. By leveraging the charging cable provided with the vehicle, companies can minimize their financial outlay while still supporting their employees' charging needs effectively.

Opting for non-networked level 2 chargers for high-mileage drivers

For higher mileage drivers with faster charging needs, a non-networked level 2 charger represents a compelling option. In this scenario, the employee pays for the unit and the installation and is then reimbursed by the company. This approach has several benefits:

  • Tax Rebates and Incentives. Employees may qualify for various tax writeoffs and incentives that are not available to companies, making the installation of a level 2 charger more affordable.
  • Ownership and Choice. Employees select and own the charging port, choose the contractor and pay for installation, which limits corporate liability and cuts costs.
  • Home Value Enhancement. Installing a level 2 charger can increase the value of the employee's home, providing them with an additional benefit and easy access to charging.
  • Accurate Reimbursement Still Possible. Modern electric vehicles record charging data, eliminating the need to get this information from a smart charger. Software like ReimburseEV can connect the dots and calculate accurate usage, costs and reimbursement.

This approach offers a cost-effective, lower-liability solution that benefits both the company and the employee, making it an attractive option for higher-mileage drivers.

The drawbacks of company-owned and networked chargers

Installing company-owned chargers, especially networked ones, is arguably the least favorable option for several reasons:

  1. Increased costs and liability: The installation and maintenance of networked chargers significantly increases costs. Moreover, owning the charging infrastructure introduces liability concerns, especially regarding data security.
  2. Connectivity and compatibility Issues: Networked chargers can suffer from connectivity issues, leading to inaccurate charging data and other operating and compliance problems.
  3. Risk of fraud: Many smart chargers do not know which vehicle is plugged in. Thus, they also risk being used by non-fleet vehicles, further complicating cost and energy management.
  4. Brand lock-in: A number of networked chargers are tied to specific OEM brands, limiting the flexibility in vehicle selection and potentially locking the company into a less dynamic fleet vehicle mix.

The drawbacks associated with company-owned and networked chargers underline the importance of evaluating charging needs carefully and opting for solutions that offer flexibility, reduce liability, and control costs.

Decision tree for fleet managers

Fleet managers should consider a decision tree approach to determine the most suitable charging solution for their needs. This decision-making process involves assessing the annual mileage of fleet drivers, access to charging, the benefits of tax incentives, and considering the long-term implications of charger ownership and ongoing liabilities. By adopting a thoughtful, structured approach to at-home charging decision-making, fleet managers can identify the most cost-effective and efficient charging solutions that align with their company's operational goals, culture, and drivers' needs.

Transitioning to an EV fleet and providing robust at-home charging solutions for your EV fleet drivers need not be a big operational bottleneck requiring huge investments in home charging infrastructure and installation costs. By understanding the specific operational demands of your EV fleet vehicles and the unique circumstances of your EV fleet drivers, companies can implement effective, efficient at-home charging solutions that save time, reduce costs, and minimize liability, all while supporting employees' transition to electric mobility.

–––

David Lewis is the founder and CEO of MoveEV, an AI-powered EV transition company that helps organizations convert fleet and employee-owned gas vehicles to electric by accurately reimbursing for charging electric vehicles at home.

Trending News

A View From HETI

ExxonMobil Chairman and CEO Darren Woods said during the company’s recent second-quarter earnings call that the company is "concerned about the development of a broader market" for its low-carbon hydrogen plant in Baytown. Photo via exxonmobil.com

Spring-based ExxonMobil, the country’s largest oil and gas company, might delay or cancel what would be the world’s largest low-carbon hydrogen plant due to a significant change in federal law. The project carries a $7 billion price tag.

The Biden-era Inflation Reduction Act created a new 10-year incentive, the 45V tax credit, for production of clean hydrogen. But under President Trump’s "One Big Beautiful Bill Act," the window for starting construction of low-carbon hydrogen projects that qualify for the tax credit has narrowed. The Inflation Reduction Act mandated that construction start by 2033. But the Big Beautiful Bill switched the construction start time to early 2028.

“While our project can meet this timeline, we’re concerned about the development of a broader market, which is critical to transition from government incentives,” ExxonMobil Chairman and CEO Darren Woods said during the company’s recent second-quarter earnings call.

Woods said ExxonMobil is working to determine whether a combination of the 45Q tax credit for carbon capture projects and the revised 45V tax credit will help pave the way for a “broader” low-carbon hydrogen market.

“If we can’t see an eventual path to a market-driven business, we won’t move forward with the [Baytown] project,” Woods said.

“We knew that helping to establish a brand-new product and a brand-new market initially driven by government policy would not be easy or advance in a straight line,” he added.

Woods said ExxonMobil is trying to nail down sales contracts connected to the project, including exports of ammonia to Asia and Europe and sales of hydrogen in the U.S.

ExxonMobil announced in 2022 that it would build the low-carbon hydrogen plant at its refining and petrochemical complex in Baytown. The company has said the plant is slated to go online in 2027 and 2028.

As it stands now, ExxonMobil wants the Baytown plant to produce up to 1 billion cubic feet of hydrogen per day made from natural gas, and capture and store more than 98 percent of the associated carbon dioxide. The company has said the project could store as much as 10 million metric tons of CO2 per year.

Trending News