EVs have an awareness problem
Catherine Rampell’s op-ed, “EVs Have a Democrat Problem,” points out a few commonly-held misperceptions regarding EVs.
One of the major impediments to wider EV adoption is a perceived lack of public charging. Rampell notes that the $7.5 billion in funding in the infrastructure bill has only resulted in 7 charging stations to date. That’s true, but very misleading. There are hundreds of charging locations under construction through this program, which will provide thousands of new chargers in the next year or so.
Why the slow buildout? The infrastructure bill required each state to come up with a plan for the location of the stations, to make sure the stations create a well-spaced and easily accessible charging network. The states then put the locations out to bid and started allocating funds in late 2023. In short, the government took steps to ensure our tax dollars are well spent. This process will continue to gain momentum over the next few years.
Second, there’s already an extensive network of very reliable charging stations: Tesla’s. It includes 15,000 Superchargers across the country, and it’s growing fast. Tesla will have about 22,000 chargers a year from now. All major brands will be adopting Tesla’s NACS plug by the end of 2025; Ford has already started to do so. This further improves charging security for EVs.
As for prices, many models have seen reductions in the past year. With inventory discounts and the federal and state tax credits — which total $12,500 this year in Colorado — the Tesla Model Y, the best-selling car model in the world in 2023, frequently sells for less than $40,000. You can look it up.
Yes, Democrats (and Tesla) have an Elon Musk problem. His pronouncements have alienated about 95% of all Americans. At the same time, he’s done more than any other single corporate leader to address global warming, the greatest threat the world faces. Would you rather buy from the car companies that continue to rely on fossil fuels?
Rick Kahl, Longmont
How much growth do Coloradans want?
I just read the guest opinion by Brian C. Keegan in which he insists “most Coloradans aren’t anti-growth.” That’s a nice double-negative meant to suggest most Coloradans do want more growth. But do they?
Mr. Keegan is identified as a “computational social scientist,” but aside from slinging some pretty damning political mud, and it is damning, at the sources of the survey cited by Steve Pomerance in a recent column, Mr. Keegan offers no actual data of his own, no rigorous survey, that supports his thesis Coloradans want the kind of massive growth Gov. Polis has in mind. He does offer the oft-heard argument that despite shrinking future supplies, we can have all the water we need for residential growth by just diverting it from agriculture.
But as a claim about what Coloradans want, that’s pretty weak tea.
Earl Noe, Boulder
How to save millions of gallons of water
Bathroom toilets are a substantial use of potable water according to various surveys. There is a conservation method, taught to me long ago by someone in a restricted water use area. “If it’s yellow, let it mellow. If it’s brown flush it down.” Should 100,000 people save 1.5 gallons per day by not flushing once, the saving amounts to over 54 million gallons in a year.
Bruce McKay, Niwot
