Print 49 comment(s) - last by Reflex.. on Apr 22 at 12:45 PM

"No Charge to Charge" will launch alongside the EZ-Charge card on July 1, 2014

Nissan is looking to lure in new LEAF customers by expanding its "No Charge to Charge" promotion and offering new EZ-Charge cards. 
According to Nissan News, the new EZ-Charge cards will allow Nissan LEAF owners to access EV charging networks like ChargePoint, Blink Network from Car Charging Group, AeroVironment and NRG eVgo.
The card will provide LEAF drivers with two years of public charging with the purchase or lease of a new LEAF. 
"No Charge to Charge" will launch alongside the EZ-Charge card on July 1, 2014 in 10 key LEAF markets, including San Francisco; Sacramento; San Diego; Seattle; Portland, Oregon; Nashville; Phoenix; Dallas-Ft. Worth; Houston, and Washington, DC. 

Buyers in these markets can take advantage of the "No Charge to Charge" and EZ-Charge cards if they purchase their LEAF on or after April 1, 2014.

"'No Charge to Charge' and EZ-Charge are a winning combination, making public charging free and easy for new LEAF buyers," said Fred Diaz, senior vice president, Nissan Sales & Marketing, Aftersales.

Once it rolls out in the first 10 markets, Nissan will expand the promotion to 15 additional markets in the following year. 

This sounds a lot like Tesla Motors' Supercharger network, which offers charging for its Model S EV at no cost to the driver. The Supercharger network just recently expanded from coast to coast, relieving EV drivers of range anxiety. 


Comments     Threshold

This article is over a month old, voting and posting comments is disabled

By Solandri on 4/18/2014 3:37:41 PM , Rating: 2
Leased a 2012 leaf in December of 2012 as the 2013s we're hitting the dealers. Fed credit got my lease payment down to $199 per month $224 after taxes. No money down, no security deposit 15k miles per year lease.

After the Georgia state credit, my monthly lease payment is a realized $16.67 per month.

You can't include federal and state credits when assessing the overall financial viability of EVs. Those credits don't reduce the cost of an EV. All they do is shift the cost to other taxpayers.

If there were a government program reimbursing you for 50% of the purchase price of solid gold toilet seats (dropping them below the price of the gold content), yeah it would make sense at the individual level to buy all the gold toilet seats they could. But it would be a money-loser for the country overall, as money which people would've spent on other sectors of the economy would instead be diverted to pay for taxes to fund all those toilet seats.

The fundamental currency is productivity, and money/price is just a representation of productivity. You can make up whatever silly rules you want about how money is spent, valued, or shifted around to distort prices in terms of money. But you can't distort the price in terms of productivity. The bottom line is that for something to be viable, the average productivity gained from using it (e.g. an EV) has to be greater than the productivity spent creating it. Shifting the productivity cost to other taxpayers does not count as decreasing the productivity cost creating it.

(To be fair, part of the credits are for the reduced pollution footprint. The pollution from gasoline cars shifts the cost of that pollution from the car's owner to society overall. The EV credits ostensibly offset that. But as I've pointed out, the vast majority of the reason EVs are cheaper to operate is because coal (used to make electricity) is nearly 10x cheaper than gasoline for the same energy content. In terms of actual total energy used during operation, coal-powered EVs only improve on ICE vehicles by about 15%-25%. We need nuclear and renewables to be a far, far greater percentage of our electricity production before the pollution reduction from EVs comes anywhere near justifying the amount of the purchase credits.)

By Reflex on 4/18/2014 4:24:45 PM , Rating: 2
Even as dirty as coal plants typically are, centralized energy production is inherently far less polluting than millions of small combustion engines with their less effective pollution controls. Also, large areas of the country are not dependent on coal, for instance Washington State is 85% nuclear and hydro powered, with only one coal plant providing power to the state.

The cost to society, as you point out, is far lower for an EV than a gasoline powered car, which is the point of the rebate. More questionable to me are the incentives that permit EV's into carpool lanes which seems superfluous and besides the point.

Ultimately though, yes for an individual family they can include the subsidy when making the decision. At the end of the day their own bank account is what matters to them. And over the life of the car they are likely still paying back more than the $7500 that they borrowed from society to buy the car.

"Folks that want porn can buy an Android phone." -- Steve Jobs

Copyright 2015 DailyTech LLC. - RSS Feed | Advertise | About Us | Ethics | FAQ | Terms, Conditions & Privacy Information | Kristopher Kubicki